Simply advocating for more ships and more weapons isn’t a viable policy, the author writes. A wider view of U.S. role in world

Never before in our nation’s history has a president’s approach to foreign affairs been so consequential. We are a nation at war overseas and in the grips of an economic crisis at home. Many are wondering whether we are witnessing the end of the American century, and our ability to maintain leadership on the global stage.

On Monday in New Hampshire, I will lay out my foreign policy vision and priorities, which will differ from the conventional thinking you will hear from some of my fellow Republican candidates — including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who will address the subject Friday.


To protect American interests, we need to transform our foreign policy for the modern world. Simply advocating for more ships, more troops and more weapons isn’t a viable foreign policy. We need more agility, more intelligence and more economic engagement with the world.

It’s time to erase the old map. End nation-building, engage our allies and fix our economic core. This is how we will fight the enemy we have — and renew American exceptionalism.

While my opponents and I agree on many things, we differ in our approaches to solving today’s greatest challenges. I believe we need to throw out the old playbook and take bold measures.

For example, Romney and I agree on the need to fix our economy in order to project strength around the world.

Yet The Wall Street Journal described Romney’s economic proposal as “timid” and “shrinks from some of our biggest issues.”

My jobs and economic plan – which includes bold changes to our outdated tax and regulatory codes – was immediately endorsed by The Wall Street Journal, and has been described as “the most pro-growth proposal ever offered by a U.S. presidential candidate.”

As much as our economy needs transformation, so, too, does our defense infrastructure and approach to foreign entanglements.

We must transform our military to reflect the asymmetric threats we face. We are still saddled with a top-heavy, post-Cold War infrastructure. It needs to be rethought and reduced. To use corporate terminology, it needs to be right-sized.

We have military installations in 135 countries. How do we pay for them? With borrowed money.

The Cold War is over. We must shift from a foreign policy of containment – the containment of communism, to a policy of expansion — the expansion of economic competitiveness and global engagement through economic partnerships and trade agreements.

In stark contrast, many of my fellow Republican candidates appear to advocate the status quo: more military entanglements and more spending.

Romney has called for adherence to a rigid level of defense spending. He claimed any defense cuts would represent a “grave mistake.”

This sort of thinking, especially at a time when our country is streaking toward unsustainable levels of debt, is flawed. Of course, we must not cut corners, and the safety of our soldiers will remain paramount, but we can save money in many areas by improving efficiencies.

The National Taxpayers Union identifies $37 billion in Defense Department waste that could be cut — just by reducing the over-ordering of obsolete and unnecessary parts.

America now finds itself threatened by a cancerous debt because politicians – in both parties – cling to sacred cows when it comes to government spending.

With regard to Afghanistan and other foreign entanglements, America should not be nation-building overseas when we have nation-building to do here at home.

Romney appeared to echo a similar thought in one debate, when he said, “It’s time for us to bring our troops home.” Though he followed with this caveat: “consistent with the word that comes from our generals.”

Our brave troops have given their all in Afghanistan and Iraq. They routed the Taliban and crippled the terrorist networks. I could not agree more that it’s time to bring them home.

The time has come to learn from experience. A president must never again allow our nation to be lured into a murky quagmire of bloody civil war — like we were for years during Vietnam.

We all share a respect for the courage of our military leaders and the men and women in uniform. A president must — and should — give the opinion of our generals the serious consideration it deserves. Yet the American people elect a commander in chief to give orders to our military, not the other way around.

These represent just a few of the many areas in which I anticipate my foreign policy priorities will differ from Romney’s, and those of my fellow candidates.

We are living in tumultuous times. Now more than ever, America needs a president who understands our complex and confusing world. Unlike my fellow candidates, my view of America’s role in the world is shaped by hands-on experience gained during four stints overseas and serving in foreign policy positions for three presidents — including ambassador to China.

I look forward to comparing and contrasting our respective visions for America in the weeks and months ahead.

Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah, is now running for the Republican presidential nomination.