Is a Judeo-Christian foreign policy actually possible?

The House GOP's second in command:

"Reaching out to the Muslim world may help in creating an environment for peace in the Middle East, but we must insist as Americans that our policies be firmly grounded in the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded."

What does this mean? Obviously, there have been a lot of interpretations with respect to political Christianity in foreign policy, running the gamut from to a belligerent hegemony, a la Bush, to complete pacifism. Which could it be? Okay, I admit was just being playfully obtuse. Jon Chait isn't on board:

Cantor is saying that the basis for America's policy in the Middle East should be the sommon religious heritage of Christians and Jews. Essentially, he wants the United States to treat Israel the way Russia treats Serbia -- an ally based on common cultural heritage. It's perfectly explicable.

It's also perfectly nuts. The basis of the U.S.-Israel alliance is, and should continue to be, Israel's democratic character and desire to live in peace, in contrast to the eliminationist intentions of its neighbors. Cantor is saying that Israel deserves America's support merely because of its Jewish quality. So if, say, Israel were to become a fascistic state bent on the destruction of its neighbors*, then the case for the U.S.-Israel alliance would be no less strong, because of a shared religious heritage. It's a rancid, illiberal, primitive way of thinking about foreign policy.

Chait is right, of course. What I generally find to be the case in discussing the intersection of religion and politics is that a lot of people who make this link are seeking to validate their policies with the authority of some of America's popular religions, rather than actually trying to find a workable, reasonable political interpretation of those religions' teachings. Based on what I know of Christian thought, and my various readings of Niebuhr, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, et al., I think I could probably devise a foreign policy scheme that would fit reasonably well with the "Judeo-Christian" tradition (a canard if ever there was one, because they're two completely separate though admittedly connected traditions).

I think it might look something like this:

1. People generally try to do good, but are thwarted by the Will to Power that tends to lead people down the path of self-interest without regard for others. A foreign policy has to take into account the human propensity to want to rule the world, and its central precept must be an avoidance of global hegemony. Concentrated power will eventually be abused.
2. Evil resides in every human heart along with good, so the goal of eliminating evil, or of seeing the world in those terms, is deeply misguided. Instead, the goal of foreign policy must be to appeal to both altruism and self-interest in terms of promoting peace.
3. War is evil, though it is sometimes necessary. Pacifism is not possible in our world, and most pacifistic notions depend upon a lack of appreciation of human self-interest that isn't correct. However, it is very rare that a country's self-interest is advanced through warfare. Most countries who have tried this since the end of colonialism wind up in a much worse state than before--Germany in WWII, North Korea, Britain in Suez 1956, the U.S. in Vietnam, etc. Aside from self-defense or perhaps stopping a genocide, military intervention is unwise and frequently counterproductive, and should be avoided, though obviously this can't be a firm rule either. The extent to which the United States was in danger during WWII is not apparent, and yet the decision to enter the war was the correct one.
   
4. When conducting a war, it is essential to preserve the rule of law and to conform to just war principles. War can bring out some good qualities in a people, but it far more often brings out bad ones. There hasn't been a war yet where the enemy hasn't been dehumanized, and while some wars are worth fighting, it is incumbent on us not to forsake democratic principle for the sake of vengeance or security or to unfairly victimize people who are, like us, formed in the image of God. These temptations are common to every war. They must be acknowledged and minimized.
   
5. The rules for dealing with countries are inevitably different than the rules for dealing with individuals. A Judeo-Christian foreign policy ought to value openness, honesty and peace while realizing that these are not always achievable.

I suppose I could go a few more, but it should seem clear that these principles--which largely come either from the thinkers I mentioned or the Bible itself, or my own spin on things--raise more questions than they solve. A sustained argument along these lines would probably need to be book length, and I am hardly qualified enough to write it. But once one gets past the most basic elements of what Judaism and Christianity have to say about human nature things get really murky, really quickly.