In my previous post discussing the nation’s latest
conversation vis-à-vis the Iraq War, I mentioned that Dr. Ben Carson’s answer
to the “knowing what you know now” question merits an entire analysis in and of
itself. Thus, challenge accepted.
The new Iraq narrative that pins the failure of governance
and the rise of ISIS on the GOP’s favorite feckless punching bag (whilst
conveniently absolving President Bush of any wrongdoing) is for the candidates
who are relatively smart and savvy with respect to foreign policy. And in this
big of a field, you can bet that not all contenders fit that description.
Dr. Ben Carson is an excellent reminder that being brilliant
and accomplished in one field doesn’t necessarily make your commentary in
another worth a damn. He has already low key fumbled on foreign policy thus
far, most notably by appearing
confused on topics ranging from this history of sectarianism in Middle East
to NATO membership on the Hugh Hewitt show in mid-March. Without the
intervention of a few top-notch foreign affairs advisors, it seems he’s headed
for a disastrous public misstep in one of the GOP debates or a facepalm-worthy
sound bite in response to a ‘gotcha’ question from the media.
Dr. Carson’s answer to
the Iraq question, however, was more illuminating than one might expect at
first glance. He told The Hill "I've said definitively that I was never in
favor of going into Iraq," and then explained that he “would have gotten
rid of the problem of Saddam Hussein some other way.” The interviewers
published no follow-up explanation for that “some other way.”
Extrapolating Dr. Carson’s answer to the entire GOP realm of
foreign policy is a useful exercise, because it’s the bottom line of their
kicking and screaming about President Obama’s foreign policy: it is very hard
to come up with alternatives that are both palatable and specific. The only
options left, then, are to dodge the question a la Carson or speak in
impressive yet ultimately vague and repetitive platitudes about American
Strength (a phrase that Sen. Marco Rubio has actually repeatedly capitalized).
Iraq is a case in point. Obama’s strategy of troop training
and advising, American airstrikes where most impactful, and coalition-building
among critical partners on the ground is the best conceivable set of policy
options for the situation. These tactics are not without their frustrations,
best exemplified by the recent fall of Ramadi. But what are the alternatives?
Former Governor Jeb Bush’s response to ISIS in February (pre-Iraq answer
kerfuffle) was to “take
them out.” Senator Lindsey Graham’s at the same time, by contrast, was to
recommend deploying 10,000
U.S. ground troops.
Bush was palatable, but no more specific than his brother’s
cowboy braggadocio; Sen. Graham was specific, but not palatable to a) a large
swath of Americans who still oppose that level of reengagement in the region
and b) politicians that would presumably vote on an AUMF for the conflict but
continue to be plagued by their original Iraq War votes.
The neoconservatives (best exemplified in the 2016 field
thus far by Sen. Graham and, increasingly, Sen. Rubio) have no problem making
the unpalatable call. The Kagan-Kristol thesis was and remains that American
military prowess, applied with significant will and in overwhelming quantity,
can answer any challenge in international affairs. This is, publically, a very
uncomfortable thing for politicians to disagree with, because even the most
nuanced of answers leaves one open to an attack of not believing in the
strength of our armed forces.
Dr. Carson, however, is not a neoconservative by any
measure. He is a creature of far right populism, trying to cobble together a
coalition of Republican primary voters consisting of evangelical conservatives,
those equally distrustful of big business and bigger government, and folks who
embrace a candidate who preaches (if not practices) their conceptualization of
“common sense.” To put it succinctly, no conservative (or for that matter,
general election voter) who prioritizes issues of foreign affairs is naturally
going to gravitate towards him.
Thus, for Dr. Carson and many candidates who occupy a
similar space in the GOP market share, pivoting away from constructive foreign
policy solutions and back to Obama criticism is both easy and essential. What
remains to be seen, however, is how the neoconservatives will influence the
foreign policy conversation in 2016. With the exception of Sen. Rand Paul, most
candidates in a crowded field are likely to be dragged rightward on questions
of military engagement just as they would be with any issue in a primary
election. This will only become more likely if more Americans—most of them
Republicans—continue to swing public opinion in favor of “boots on the ground”
in Iraq.
For now, though, Dr. Carson can get away with such a
non-answer to the question of Saddam Hussein. Asking voters to believe that he
could have used some yet unknown means to whisk one of the Middle East’s most
survivable dictators away without crushing military defeat may be a laughable
idea to students of Iraqi history, but it is actually preferable to the average
American who dislikes both totalitarianism and American casualties abroad. The
clock may be running short for such simpleton views, though; as things heat up,
we’re likely to see just how tightly the tentacles of neoconservatism are
wrapped around foreign policy thinking in the Republican Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment