Issue Position: Foreign Policy

Issue Position

First and foremost, if a President wishes to conduct offensive military operations, he -- or she -- should be able to explain clearly the threat to our national security, the specific objectives of the operations, and the end result he or she wishes to obtain.

Second, we will honor our treaty commitments. But we are not obligated to join a treaty partner if they elect to use force outside the direct boundaries of our commitment, as in Libya. Neither the United Nations nor NATO has the power to bring the United States into an elective war without the consent of our Congress.

Third, we will maintain superiority in our strategic systems. This includes not only nuclear weapons but also such areas as technology, space, and cyber warfare.

Fourth, we will preserve and exercise the right of self-defense as guaranteed under international law and the UN Charter.

Fifth, we have important allies around the world, especially in Asia and the Middle East, whom we will continue to support in many ways. This will not cease. In fact, as we clarify our other commitments, these relationships will be strengthened.

Sixth, with respect to the war against terrorism, we will act vigorously against terrorist organizations if they are international in nature and are a direct threat to our national security. This includes the right to conduct military operations in foreign countries if that country is unwilling or unable to address the threat. We maintain this right through international law, and through Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

However, there is an important caveat to how our country should fight international terrorism. The violation of this principle has caused us a lot of trouble in the recent past. I can do no better than to quote from an article I wrote on September 12th, 2001, the day after the 9 / 11 attacks. "DO NOT OCCUPY TERRITORY. The terrorist armies make no claim to be members of any nation-state. Similarly, it would be militarily and politically dangerous for our military to operate from permanent or semi-permanent bases, or to declare that we are defending specific pieces of terrain in the regions where the terrorist armies live and train. We already have terrain to defend -- the United States and our outposts overseas -- and we cannot afford to expand this territory in a manner that would simply give the enemy more targets."

And finally, a warning spurred by the actions of this Administration in places such as Libya. There is no such thing as the right of any President to unilaterally decide to use force in combat operations based on such vague concepts as "humanitarian intervention." If a treaty does not obligate us, if American forces are not under attack or under threat of imminent attack, if no Americans are at risk, the President should come to the congress before he or she sends troops into Harm's Way.

Source