" />

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

Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.


Joe Lieberman, the neoconservative Democrat from Connecticut who retired from the Senate in 2013, co-chairs a foreign policy project at the American Enterprise Institute.


The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney has emerged as the most visible advocate of hardline security policies in the Cheney family.


Former attorney general Edwin Meese, regarded as one of President Ronald Reagan’s closest advisers despite persistent allegations of influence peddling and bribery during his tenure, has been a consummate campaigner on behalf of rightist U.S. foreign and domestic policies. He currently serves as a distinguished visiting fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.


The Heritage Foundation, a mainstay of the right-wing advocacy community, has long pressured the United States to adopt militaristic U.S. foreign policies


David Addington, who helped author the “torture memos” and other controversial legal documents while serving as an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, left the right-wing Heritage Foundation to become VP and general counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, a business lobby.


Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), a stalwart advocate of Pentagon spending now based at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, says he would have voted for the Iraq War even if he had known the Bush administration’s claims about WMDs were false.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Trump’s reorganization of the foreign policy bureaucracy is an ideologically driven agenda for undermining the power and effectiveness of government institutions that could lead to the State Department’s destruction.


Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


Print Friendly

Hopeful that Donald Trump may actually be their kind of guy, neoconservatives are full of praise for the cruise-missile strike against Syria and are pressing for more.


Print Friendly

Steve Bannon’s removal from the NSC’s Principals Committee doesn’t mean that he’s gone from the White House or no longer exerts a powerful influence on Trump. His office is still located very close to the Oval Office, and there’s nothing to indicate that his dark and messianic worldview has changed.


RightWeb
share