John McCain has led the interventionist wing of the Republican Party, Joe Scarborough writes. Farewell to GOP interventionism?

There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. But unlike the endless war raging in Afghanistan, this political fight over U.S. foreign policy should be over by the end of the presidential election.

For the past decade, John McCain has led the interventionist wing of the Republican Party, promoting military invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Yemen and a host of other Muslim countries. The fact that the Arizona senator supported the two major Bush wars is not extraordinary in itself. Despite the media’s collective amnesia on the subject, the foreign policy establishment and most Americans initially supported Bush’s wars.


What is extraordinary is the fact that after no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, after our allies’ corrupt nature was revealed in Afghanistan and after a decade of warfare in both countries, McCain and his shrinking alliance want to continue America’s march into an endless war in a country of marginal significance. The fact that there are more staff members working for McCain on Capitol Hill than Al Qaeda members in all of Iraq seems of little interest to the former presidential candidate.

This weekend, McCain proved that he learned much from his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, by employing the president’s irritating tactic of setting false choices in hopes of elevating his own untenable position. On “This Week,” McCain took aim at GOP presidential candidates who questioned the wisdom of America’s endless wars.

“This is isolationism,” he told Christiane Amanpour. “There’s always been an … isolationist strain in the Republican Party, the Pat Buchanan wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage.”

It is laughable to suggest that any Republican who does not support being involved simultaneously in three hot wars is taking up the cause of the John Birch Society, turning their backs on internationalism and calling for bringing our troops home. Though you would never believe it listening to the former POW, there is a middle ground between McCain’s interventionism and Ron Paul’s isolationism.

And that is where most voters find themselves heading into the 2012 election. Some GOP candidates are finally getting that message.

When asked about Afghanistan at last week’s GOP debate, front-runner Mitt Romney said, “It’s time to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can.”

The debate’s breakout star, Rep. Michele Bachmann, correctly noted that the United States has “no vital interest” in Libya.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who will declare his candidacy this week, told Esquire magazine that continuing our endless war in Afghanistan to “stay and play traffic cop” does not “serve our strategic interests.”

Such restraint being showcased on one stage was too much for McCain.

“I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today?” asked McCain.

Good question. Here’s the answer.

Since Reagan’s White House created the analytical construct for conservative foreign policy with the Weinberger doctrine, it’s easy to answer the question “What Would Ronnie Do?”

Following the terrorist attack against Marines stationed in Beirut, Reagan’s Defense Department began developing a foreign policy designed to prevent the kind of military tragedies that plagued America from Vietnam through Beirut. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, with the help of Colin Powell, created a conservative approach to military intervention that clearly outlined when military troops should be committed to foreign wars.

The Reagan doctrine limited such events to a limited number of circumstances where the armed conflict is vital to American interests, where our objectives are clearly defined, where our commitment is full and overwhelming and where the war has public support.

When measured next to Reagan’s tough standards, the war that McCain is backing in Libya fails miserably. Afghanistan fares no better 10 years after the U.S. began a mission that once met the strenuous requirements of the Weinberger doctrine but does so no longer.

The fact that a few Republicans are rediscovering the wisdom of the restrained foreign policy conservatives championed before George W. Bush began a decade of Wilsonian nation-building is a reason to cheer. The United States of America cannot continue to exhaust its limited resources on being an occupying power while China invests in business, education and infrastructure. A new battle has begun, and it has nothing to do with missiles.

Along with conservatives like George Will and Peggy Noonan, I upset Republican loyalists during the Bush era by echoing the restrained approach of Reagan and Powell to foreign policy. But these days, Reagan finally seems to be more than a punch line for Republican politicians. These days, it seems, a few candidates are actually following the great man’s advice by supporting a more realistic approach to war and peace.

That may be bad news for the champions of military adventurism, but it is great news for America.

A guest columnist for POLITICO, Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC and represented Florida’s 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001.