DERRY, N.H. — The hawkish consensus on national security that has dominated Republican foreign policy for the last decade is giving way to a more nuanced view, with some presidential candidates expressing a desire to withdraw from Afghanistan as quickly as possible and suggesting that the United States has overreached in Libya.
The shift, while incremental so far, appears to mark a separation from a post-Sept. 11 posture in which Republicans were largely united in supporting an aggressive use of American power around the world. A new debate over the costs and benefits of deploying the military reflects the length of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the difficulty of building functional governments and the financial burden at home in a time of extreme fiscal pressure.
The evolution also highlights a renewed streak of isolationism among Republicans, which has been influenced by the rise of the Tea Party movement and a growing sense that the United States can no longer afford to intervene in clashes everywhere.
The killing of Osama bin Laden has intensified questions about the need for prolonged American involvement in fighting Al Qaeda.
Continue reading the main storyThe evolution of thinking inside the party is coming into view as Republicans begin sorting through their field of candidates to select a nominee to challenge President Obama, who faces a decision this summer about a troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. It could leave some of the party’s presidential candidates at odds with its most influential voices on foreign policy, like Senator John McCain of Arizona, who continues to call for an aggressive military effort to stabilize Afghanistan.
Jon M. Huntsman Jr., a former governor of Utah who just finished a two-year stint as ambassador to China in the Obama administration, said Tuesday that the cost of a continued military presence was a leading factor in his belief that a major troop drawdown should begin in Afghanistan.
Mr. Huntsman, who has said he would make his candidacy official next Tuesday, said a force of about 15,000 troops should be left behind for anti-terrorism efforts, but added: “There’s the desire on the part of most Americans to begin phasing out as quickly as possible.”
“This would mean that the very expensive boots on the ground may be something that is not critical for our national security needs,” Mr. Huntsman said in a brief interview. “Nor is it something we can afford at this point in our economic history. I think most Americans would say it’s probably a good transition point.”
Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, said in the Republican presidential debate Monday night that it was “time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can,” consistent with the advice of commanders about their ability to hand off control of regions to Afghan security forces without risking a return of the Taliban.
“But I also think we’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation,” he said. “Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Romney sought to draw a distinction between his thinking and that of Mr. Huntsman and others who say the financial cost should be a big factor in the calculation.
“There will be some who argue it’s too expensive now, we’ve got to bring the troops home right now, or others will say, politically we need to make one decision or another,” Mr. Romney said here. “You don’t make a decision about our involvement in a conflict based on dollars and cents alone or certainly not with regards to politics.”
Tim Pawlenty, a former governor of Minnesota, said that conditions on the ground and the advice of military commanders — not the cost — should guide decisions about Afghanistan troop levels.
“We have to remember why we invaded the country in the first place,” Mr. Pawlenty said, adding that the security level was not yet sufficient for a full withdrawal. But he said, “Our mission in Afghanistan is not to stay there forever or to stay there for 10 more years to rebuild their country.”
The array of Republican viewpoints, which have drawn new lines among neo-conservatives, Tea Party supporters, traditional hawks and other elements of the party, were on display during the first major presidential debate on Monday night, as the candidates started to mull the limits of American power at a time when some of the threats to the nation are less clear and its willingness to commit resources of all kinds is being looked at anew.
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the decision by Mr. Obama to involve the United States military in the effort to dislodge Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from power in Libya was “substantially flawed” and did not meet the criteria of protecting the national interest.
“We were not attacked,” Ms. Bachmann said. “We were not threatened with attack.”
Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker, assailed American intelligence in the region, calling it “so inadequate that we have no idea what percent of the Libyan rebels are in fact Al Qaeda.” At the same time, Mr. Gingrich said “the price tag’s always a factor” when deciding to engage in military action.
Four years ago, Representative Ron Paul of Texas was the only Republican presidential candidate raising concerns about the cost of the war and urging a drawdown in troops. His positions, embraced by libertarians, are still outside the mainstream of many Republicans, but he is no longer standing alone in his call for a new stance toward foreign policy.
Small but growing numbers of House Republicans have registered opposition to the war.
Republicans have also been challenging Mr. Obama’s decision to employ the military in the Libya conflict without Congressional authorization. Speaker John A. Boehner on Tuesday demanded from the president a legal justification for the engagement and set a Friday deadline for a response, escalating the clash over whether the White House is in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act.
John Ullyot, a former Marine intelligence officer who served as a Republican spokesman on the Senate Armed Services Committee during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, said Tuesday that the party’s unified approach to foreign policy is steadily shifting.
“Republicans clearly sense fatigue among voters with our decade-long effort in Afghanistan, particularly after the killing of Bin Laden and the lack of a reliable partner,” Mr. Ullyot said. “There is no stampede yet, but more Republicans are willing to raise tougher questions when it comes to committing our forces and sustaining long-term and costly engagements.”
Continue reading the main story