" />

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

One War Is Not Enough for GOP Candidates

Print Friendly

The GOP presidential candidates, almost without exception, have displayed remarkably tone-deaf attitudes regarding the imminent U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, while revealing a near-unanimous desire to make Iran the next target of U.S. military intervention, doubtless making their myriad neoconservative Machiavellis proud.

 

In a chorus described by Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen as “completely tone deaf,” the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential contenders have unanimously criticized the Obama administration’s announcement that the last U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

 

Among the highlights in a recent National Review round up of the candidates’ responses: Mitt Romney’s argument that the withdrawal amounts to an “astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq”; Michele Bachmann statement that “President Obama’s decision represents the end of the era of America’s influence in Iraq and the strengthening of Iran’s influence in Iraq with no plan to counter that influence”; Jon Huntsman claim that “the president’s inability to reach a security agreement leaves Iraq vulnerable to backsliding, thus putting our interests in the region at risk”; and Rick Perry’s hand-wringing about being “deeply concerned that President Obama is putting political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment.”

 

Elsewhere, Newt Gingrich flip-flopped between claiming that the “the president is right” and lamenting that the announcement “will be seen by historians as a decisive defeat for the U.S. in Iraq.” Rick Santorum, who also accused Obama of having "tacitly supported … Ahmadinejad and the mullahs” during the 2009 protests in Iran, lamented that “the Iranians now have more sway over the Iraqi government than the United States.” Herman Cain, meanwhile, left unchanged his assessment that “withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan were ‘a dumb thing to do.’”

 

But if the candidates were concerned about Iran’s influence in the Middle East—a development hardly new to the Obama administration—they nevertheless seem to have a (military) solution. “Option A,” Herman Cain has said, “is, 'Folks, we are not going to allow [Iran] to attack Israel.’ If they call my bluff, they already know—they will know—what Option B is.” Cain has also called for placing U.S. weapons systems in the Persian Gulf, encouraging Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “make my day.” In more tempered language, Mitt Romney has proposed something arguably more aggressive, advocating the placement of a U.S. naval carrier force in the eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf “to deter would-be aggressors” there.

 

Michele Bachmann—whose congressional Tea Party Caucus previously endorsed an Israeli military strike on Iran—has charged that Iran “fail[s] to respect the U.S. and our presence” in the Middle East, pledging that she would “take everything at our disposal to make sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.” Jon Huntsman, typically less hawkish than his GOP colleagues, has nonetheless echoed this sentiment. "I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran,” he told a New Hampshire audience. “If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that.”

 

Newt Gingrich has been perhaps the most explicit about Iran. Arguing that Tehran has been "waging war against us since 1979," Gingrich has explicitly espoused an emphatic regime-change line, telling CNN, "Our goal should be the replacement of the Iranian dictatorship."

 

–Peter Certo

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is one the Senate’s more ardent supporters of militaristic U.S. foreign policies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share