2/17/11 

During the election this past November there was much speculation about what the divide between establishment conservatives and Tea Party-backed conservatives would mean for public policy. This was particularly true for national security issues, which both conservative factions barely discussed last fall.  Unsurprisingly, over the past two weeks, a series of congressional votes and debates have demonstrated that there still remains no clear vision of America's role in the world - or even coherence on important national security measures at home - for the deeply divided conservatives. Their lack of coherence is instead making matters worse on foreign policy and is now breeding confusion and unpredictability for the Pentagon and administration officials at precisely the moment when clarity is needed.  As Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli said about this situation and how to integrate it into his military planning: "It's a mystery to me." Particularly troubling is that this debate is occurring against a backdrop of multiple international crises that need to be handled with both responsibility and a clear strategic outlook. Unfortunately, it is becoming stunningly clear that conservatives in congress cannot provide such coherence.

Defense budget cuts further exacerbate conservative division and incoherence. Julian Zelizer, a professor at Princeton University and expert on the politics of national security, explains, "Republicans are divided over what to do about the defense budget. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants to reduce it by $78 billion over the next five years... Some Republicans have acted reflexively, insisting on no cuts to the military budget. Howard McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and an establishment Republican, said: ‘I cannot say it strongly enough: I will not support any measures that stress our forces and jeopardize the lives of our men and women in uniform.' Other Republicans have joined him. Sarah Palin has repeatedly stated that military spending should be off the table when it comes to deficit reduction... But some Republicans, primarily those associated with the Tea Party, have started to push back against their colleagues. Former House Majority Leader Richard Armey, who has worked closely with the leadership of the Tea Party Movement, told The New York Times, ‘A lot of people say if you cut defense, you're demonstrating less than a full commitment to our nation's security -- and that's baloney.' House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor have signaled they are willing to consider the Pentagon's budget in discussions." [Julian Zelizer, 2/1/11]

Extra engine vote exposes conservative fissures. Yesterday, 110 Republicans, including 47 freshmen, spilt from the Speaker of the House and voted to strip funding from the 2011 Continuing Resolution for an extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  As Politico reported, "The House on Wednesday cut $450 million for a second, alternate engine made by General Electric for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter after an epic lobbying battle. The cut was victory for the Obama administration, which like the last Bush administration, sought to scuttle the engine. And it was a loss for Republican House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, which has many of the GE engine jobs. The vote was also seen as a test for how the influx of new budget-minded Republicans would behave... establishment Republicans were growing skittish that if freshmen were swayed by that message, it could upend conventional wisdom about how other Republicans vote on defense matters." Following the vote, Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL), who sponsored the amendment, was "asked how deeply Boehner had been fighting to keep the engine, Rooney said he couldn't speak for the speaker. ‘I've been trying to stay away from him,' Rooney said." [Politico, 2/16/11]

Patriot Act vote shows divide. The House voted today to extend three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act for 90 days, after what was assumed to be an easy vote failed last week. This demonstrates a strong divide. The New York Times explains, "Republicans have a long history of favoring small government except when it comes to surveillance and security, at which point civil liberties take a back seat. Last week, however, 26 Republicans in the House demonstrated a remarkable consistency by joining 122 Democrats to prevent the extension of three questionable provisions of the Patriot Act, the post-9/11 law created during the Bush administration. The vote splashed some cold water on the House Republican leadership, which had been so confident that it raised the extension under fast-track rules that require a two-thirds majority." The Washington Post described the original vote, saying, "House Republicans suffered an embarrassing setback Tuesday when they fell seven votes short of extending provisions of the Patriot Act, a vote that served as the first small uprising of the party's tea-party bloc." [NY Times, 2/12/11.Washington Post, 2/8/11]

Defunding foreign aid splits conservatives. Foreign Policy's The Cable reports that, "Rep. [Ron] Paul is trying to build support for an amendment to the fiscal 2011 funding bill that would end all foreign assistance to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Pakistan. The funding bill currently being debated by the House, called the continuing resolution (CR), is needed to keep the government running after March 4... While there is probably enough bipartisan support for aid to Israel to defeat Paul's amendment, the debate over continued funding for other Arab countries is more complex. Some GOP heavyweights, like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), have suggested scuttling all foreign aid that is not designated for staunch U.S. allies such as Israel. House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) has argued for restricting aid to the Egyptian government unless it excludes the Muslim Brotherhood from any representation in the new parliament. Other leading Republicans, especially in the Senate, have voiced support for continuing U.S. assistance to Egypt and Jordan. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is working behind the scenes to craft an aid package to the CR that would fully fund the president's request for foreign aid to Egypt, Jordan, and Israel. Aid to Pakistan, which totals over $1.5 billion each year, has strong support from Senate Foreign Relations Committee heads John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN)." [Foreign Policy, 2/16/11]

Conservatives continue to have no coherent ideas, strategy for national security. Going into last November's elections, the foreign policy views of newly elected Members of Congress were largely unknown. Despite two wars, international affairs played almost no role in the elections. At the time, Peter Baker wrote in Foreign Policy magazine on the Tea Party's "know-nothing" views on national security: "The question for the movement is whether it can maintain its own uneasy coalition. And for now, at least, that means steadfastly ignoring foreign-policy declarations of any sort.  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." At the time NSN wrote, "But the broader conservative movement has little to offer either.  The conservative ‘Pledge to America' released last month by House conservatives outlining their legislative priorities fails to address the wars we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorism, energy security and other key national security issues we face." And Max Bergmann, a national security analyst at the Center for American Progress, summed it up, saying, "All the ‘pledge' tells us therefore, is that the House GOP will support war in perpetuity and that it has no concrete ideas about what America's foreign policy should be." Conservatives failed to articulate a coherent vision for foreign policy before the elections, preferring instead to paper over differences - and they're paying the price for it now. [Peter Baker, Foreign Policy, 10/10. NSN, 10/18/10. Max Bergmann, Wonk Room, 9/23/10]

What We're Reading

A late night police crackdown in Bahrain shattered a peaceful protest that had been gathering in the center of the capital, leaving at least five people dead and hundreds more wounded.

A Pakistani court postponed a decision about whether a U.S. citizen accused of murder has diplomatic immunity.

China warned the United States not to use calls for Internet freedom as a "pretext for interfering" in Chinese affairs.

Brazil announced the arrest of 19 police officers suspected of belonging to a "death squad" that had been active for a decade.

An Egyptian official said that Iran had canceled its plans to send two of its warships through the Suez Canal.

Israeli troops shot and killed three Palestinian men in the Gaza Strip.

An accidental explosion at an army base in the Tanzanian city of Dar es Salaam set off a chain reaction of explosions at arms depots, killing at least 32 people.

A Somali pirate was sentenced to 33 years in prison by a U.S. court.

Moscow police raided the offices of Inteko, a large construction company run by Yelena Baturina, the wife of the Moscow mayor who was fired by the Kremlin last year.

In its 249th day of political stalemate, Belgium tied Iraq for the longest time a country has gone without a government.

Commentary of the Day

Fareed Zakaria writes that there is no turning back in the Middle East's current wave of uprisings and cites the region's youth bulge as a primary factor.

Yevgeny Bazhanov argues that while there are plenty of critics of New START in Russia and the United States, the treaty will ultimately benefit both countries.

Frank Ching warns that China is likely to increase repression of its people in response to the Egyptian revolution.