TO BUILD PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SOUND SECURITY POLICIES, MR. CLINTON MUST GET THE WORD: ‘IT’S FOREIGN POLICY, STUPID’

(Washington, D.C.): A House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing today offered an exceptional opportunity for the Center for Security Policy to address with leading legislators the forces jeopardizing public support for needed, robust U.S. foreign and defense policies. Center director Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. contended that the American people overwhelmingly subscribe to the view that "the world [is] a better, and safer, place if a strong and engaged America play[s] a decisive role in its affairs" — notwithstanding their putative preoccupation with domestic matters and alleged neo-isolationist leanings. Appearing with nationally recognized pollsters Daniel Yankelovich and the Times Mirror’s Andrew Kohut, Mr. Gaffney noted that roughly two-thirds of Americans have consistently supported the United States playing an "active role" in international relations.

Mr. Gaffney identified the failure of American leadership — especially that of President Clinton and his senior subordinates — as the principal factor prompting the public to exhibit little enthusiasm for U.S. security policy at the moment. He observed:

"In the absence of a clear sense of the vision, direction and purpose for U.S. foreign and defense policies, the public in this country — like its counterparts in other democracies — is susceptible to the temptation to believe that the world can be safely ignored. This is particularly true when our leaders pander to such senti-ments, either because they themselves lack a sense of the needed vision, direction and purpose or because they think it is the safest route to political popularity."

Mr. Gaffney urged a three-step remedy for this dangerous situation: (1) The President and his advisors must conceptualize and articulate a coherent security policy — one that is compatible with the Nation’s need to be able to engage decisively in world affairs. (2) Such policy must be based on principle and long-term national interests, not polls, focus groups or other, often unreliable gauges of ephemeral public opinion. And (3) the President, his advisors and the Congress must be held accountable for decisions that are at cross-purposes with the common sense and traditional desires of the American people.

In his opening remarks — and in subsequent discussions with participating Committee members — Mr. Gaffney highlighted the following as examples of issues requiring greater accountability: the absurdity of official policies that will leave this country, its allies and troops overseas permanently vulnerable to ballistic missile attack; the dangers of committing U.S. forces to a deployment on the Golan Heights without careful deliberation and prior debate; the unilateral liquidation of America’s nuclear deterrent now underway; the folly of abandoning controls on the export of strategic dual-use technologies; the risks involved in believing that the world can be rid of chemical and biological weapons through irresponsible arms control agreements.

Interestingly, the concerns raised by the Center about the quality and direction of U.S. foreign policy decision-making were being raised simultaneously at another Washington forum by an impressive array of former security policy practitioners. At a Foreign Policy Forum sponsored by the Republican National Committee, former Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Secretary of State James Baker served notice on Mr. Clinton that, like it or not, he had better stop operating as though "It’s the economy, stupid."

Excerpts of Mr. Gaffney’s testimony are attached. The full text may be obtained by contacting the Center.