The Republican Party, and by proxy its tea party brethren, would have you believe that they are anointed to carry the national security torch. They'd like the nation to think they offer policies that will keep us safe and ensure the wise and appropriate use of force in the pursuit of vital American interests.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Right now, the Republican Party is split into two factions, the War Party and the Tea Party. The conservative "Pledge to America" outlines the War Party's foreign policy agenda or, more accurately, lack thereof. The "pledge" offers no concrete ideas about foreign policy. It fails to address terrorism, energy security or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld before them, the only thing the War Party's "pledge" supports is endless war. 

The clearest example of this foreign policy know-nothing-ism came recently from Rep. Joe "You Lie" Wilson, R-S.C., who revealed that only on his fifth visit to Iraq did he realize Sunnis and Shias "consider each other infidels worthy of killing." Keep in mind that Rep. Wilson is charged, along with his peers on the House Armed Services Committee, with deciding if and when to commit the youth of America to war. And after seven years of war, he's only now coming to grips with basic facts that even a casual observer understood in the early months of the invasion.

As for the Tea Party, they have no vision at all on foreign policy. As Peter Baker has pointed out, "When nearly half a million Tea Party supporters voted online to define their campaign agenda, not a single one of the 10 planks they agreed on had anything to do with the world beyond America's borders." Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul stated that he's "not thinking about Afghanistan; foreign policy is really a complete non-issue." Coloradosenatorial candidate Ken Buck is no better. In an interview on "Meet the Press," Buck had only a non-answer to a question on Afghanistan.

Not only have Republicans offered no solutions for wars abroad, they're failing veterans, too. Despite lofty rhetoric about supporting the troops, Senate candidates Sharron Angle and Buck have proposed privatizing the Department of Veterans Affairs. And when he was in Congress, Pennsylvania candidate Pat Toomey voted down $1,500 bonuses for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, calling them "wasteful" spending. 

It's not just the new blood either: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voted against the new GI Bill to give education and health benefits to veterans and called Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a supporter that bill, "the most bitterly partisan, most anti-defense senator in the United States Senate today." Those words ring hollow when you learn that the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in their Congressional Report Card, gave Sen. McCain a "D" grade, while Sen. Boxer received an "A."

The United States faces some very tough national security decisions in the next few years as we wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, confront Iran's nuclear ambitions and manage rising powers such as China and Russia. We need bright, informed and steady leadership to navigate these challenges competently. 

Until 1992, one could argue that the Republican Party could fulfill that responsibility. But the establishment and tea party conservatives' recent lurch to the right has distanced Republicans from the more sober foreign policies of Republican presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush. From the War Party's John McCain to the Tea Party's Rand Paul, the right has moved away from the hardheaded pragmatism that helped America win the Cold War and, instead, is pushing us toward a policy of endless, unilateral war.

America deserves civilian leaders who have taken the time to learn about the world we live in, who will send our young men and women to war only to protect American interests, and who will take care of those who serve when they come home. 

Neither faction of the Republican Party -- the War Party or the Tea Party -- has shown itself willing or able to fulfill those sacred duties. 

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton served more than 30 years in the U.S. Army. From 2003-2004, he developed, designed and led the training of the Iraqi military. Currently, Gen. Eaton is a senior adviser at the National Security Network.