The Republican presidential candidates' debate last week raised questions as to where the GOP is headed on foreign policy issues. When asked about pressing international matters such as Libya and Afghanistan, the candidates offered a range of answers striking in their variety. Of course, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) can always be counted upon to call for American strategic disengagement globally. But other candidates such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) also voiced noted skepticism regarding current U.S. military interventions overseas. Romney suggested that the United States cannot fight "a war of independence for another nation," and offered a rather mixed statement on American efforts in Afghanistan. Bachmann, for her part, laid out a ringing condemnation of the current U.S. intervention in Libya. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, though absent that night, has said similar things about both Libya and Afghanistan in recent weeks. Of the leading candidates onstage in the debate, only former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty offered a clear defense of existing U.S. military engagements overseas. To be sure, the format was hardly one to allow for lengthy position statements, but what was said did raise a lot of eyebrows. The New York Times went so far as to declare that the debate indicated a "renewed streak of isolationism" within the GOP. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) raised similar concerns on Sunday morning about "an isolationist strain in the Republican Party."

There is no doubt that the rise of the tea party movement, the sweeping nature of President Obama's health care reforms, and the shift in focus to domestic economic issues over the last couple of years has led to a change of emphasis for most Republicans. The GOP is now focused, energized, and united around principles of fiscal and economic conservatism, in opposition to Obama. Naturally this can have a certain spillover effect when it comes to foreign policy. But this hardly makes today's Republicans "isolationist."

The word isolationist is usually used pejoratively, but if it is going to have any sort of practical utility, it ought to mean something specific. Here is a stab at one such definition. Some politicians, journalists, and foreign policy analysts in the United States -- past and present -- have called for the dismantling of most of America's strategic commitments, alliances and bases in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. That is a position which might reasonably be called isolationist. Ron Paul embraces that position. There is no indication that any of the other Republican candidates do.

If a desire to disengage quickly from Afghanistan is an indication of isolationism, then it is mainly Democrats and not Republicans who suffer from it. Just last month, the House of Representatives considered a measure to force the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Afghan conflict. The measure was defeated by only nine votes. Press coverage focused on the fact that some 26 GOP House members voted for rapid American withdrawal -- again, characterized as an indication of growing Republican isolationism. As usual, the real story was elsewhere, in the mass defection of virtually all Democratic House members from their own president's policy. The numbers show that roughly 90 percent of House Republicans voted to stick it out in Afghanistan, while over ninety percent of House Democrats voted to bring the troops home right away. Public opinion polls are less polarized by party but show similar tendencies. A Pew Research Center poll released last week shows 60 percent of Republicans committed to keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan until the situation in that country stabilizes. Among Democrats, that number is 36 percent. The same might be said on issues of trade: whatever international leadership Obama provides is with the support of Republicans, more than Democrats.

With regard to Libya, arguments against that intervention are a curious test case for isolationism. The Libyan intervention was from the very beginning so strategically incoherent, and Obama so cavalier in his attitude toward Congress, that it is hardly surprising many Republicans are upset. The administration's position on the war in Libya, as far as we can tell and without exaggeration, is that it is more important to receive the blessing of the Arab League than of the U.S. Congress when America goes to war; that in any case this is not actually a "war"; and that the United States "leads from behind" in such cases, whatever that means. I believe the answer in this case is not to pull the plug on operations, but to escalate U.S. airstrikes, in order to speed Gadhafi's overthrow; we cannot simply walk away, now that the United States has picked a fight, without bolstering impressions of American weakness overseas. But if frustration with this Libyan operation amounts to isolationism, then we need to find a new foreign policy lexicon.

There has certainly been an adjustment in the foreign policy emphases of many congressional and/or grassroots Republicans and conservatives over the last couple of years. The shift has been away from a Wilsonian approach and toward a more hard-nosed, Jacksonian approach -- toward a somewhat greater skepticism of foreign aid programs, nation-building concepts, and foreign interventions. In several cases there is a danger that this skepticism may be applied indiscriminately. But the vast majority of the congressional GOP today supports a foreign policy posture of American leadership, strong national defense, energetic counter-terrorism, and firm support for U.S. allies. The same is true of most Republicans nationwide, including fiscal conservatives as well as tea party supporters.

The fact is that even within the tea party movement, genuine and determined isolationists are a minority. A much larger number of grassroots conservatives are instinctive national security hawks who reject any notion of America's international leveling or decline. Many such voters simply do not perceive international issues as their leading concern today. Ironically it is that very perception which allows for possibilities of political and presidential leadership. If Republican leaders can explain how and why fiscal conservatism and a strong foreign policy are mutually reinforcing, then they can rally support for both.

The foreign policy debate within the Republican Party is starting to become really interesting. This is what happens when parties do not control the White House -- they debate the issues. They debate their identity. They debate how to retake the presidency. One particular foreign policy vision will win out in that debate. That is why we have presidential primaries.

There is obviously an opening right now for a GOP presidential candidate to articulate a strong, coherent foreign policy vision consistent with basic conservative priorities. Republicans have not nominated a genuine isolationist for president since 1936. They will not nominate one in 2012. In the end, the winning GOP foreign policy stance will be a muscular, unapologetic one of American leadership and peace through strength. Bet on it.