Right Web

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

We Need More From Our Candidates on the Middle East

More should be demanded of the 2016 presidential candidates than mindless bluster or vacuous pronouncements on the Middle East.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

I have long argued that how candidates for high office speak about the Middle East should be a critical test of their capacity to lead our nation. Since the end of the Vietnam war, we have spent more money, sold or given more weapons, sent more troops, fought more wars, lost and taken more lives, expended more political capital, and have more vital interests at stake in that region than anywhere else in the world. And yet our candidates have not faced this reality by providing us with a substantial discussion about the challenges we face in that critical region.    

I have listened attentively to all of the Republican and Democratic Party debates and have been deeply disturbed. I am most troubled by what I hear on the Republican side.

From what I have learned so far, Republicans largely agree on a few points: ISIS must be defeated; Israel must be defended and never criticized; the Iran deal is bad and should be rescinded; President Obama has weakened America and betrayed our allies; and Syrian refugees, especially those who are Muslims, should not be allowed into the United States.

There are, to be sure, some differences in how the candidates propose addressing this litany of concerns. And there are other Middle East issues where the candidates differ, for example, on whether the Iraq war was a disastrous failure and whether the region is better off or worse off following the overthrow of dictators like Mummar Qadhdhafi. But, for the most part, I have found that the Middle East policies the candidates have advocated have ranged from the absurd to the banal—demonstrating a disturbing lack of both seriousness and understanding of the issues facing the United States in the Middle East.

Donald Trump, for example, suggests that dealing with America’s Arab allies will be easy for him because “I know these people and do business with them” – ignoring the fact that many of “these people” have denounced him and cancelled their business connections with him following his repeated displays of anti-Muslim bigotry.

For his part, Jeb Bush offered a quick and easy three point agenda to fix the Middle East that included: getting tough with Iran; immediately moving the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; and then rebuilding frayed ties with our Arab allies in the Gulf region—ignoring the fact that once he moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, he could pretty much forget about rebuilding ties with Arab allies and count, instead, on a crisis with every Arab and Muslim country.

Then there’s Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, both of whom reject admitting Syrian refugees who are Muslim, calling it “lunacy” or “irresponsible”—forgetting, of course, that their parents were refugees and that locking out innocent civilians fleeing war and persecution on the basis of their religion would not only be an unconscionable act of discrimination, but would compromise whatever relationships we have with the Muslim world.

And then there’s Ted Cruz’s nerdy tough guy talk about bombing ISIS until the desert sand glows or Chris Christie’s consulting with Jordan’s long deceased King Hussein—making both candidates sound like silly amateurs.

The fact is that most of the candidates’ pronouncements about key Middle East issues appear to come from ignorance (they just don’t know), willed ignorance (they just don’t want to know because it is has never been politically important to them), or ideology (a problem for the neo-conservatives like Rubio or the evangelicals like Huckabee and Carson—whose convictions are based on blind faith, not on fact).

Democrats, too, must be criticized. While they have not made preposterous statements or been threatening or demagogic, they, all too often, have come up short, failing to propose new ideas that can help unwind conflicts raging across the Middle East. Pledging, for example, to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without suggesting any way to restrain Israel’s behavior or end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, makes that pledge hollow. On this and other issues, simply embracing the failed policies of the past is nothing more than a recipe for more failure.

If all this were a mere academic exercise, it would be sad and disturbing. But it is so much more, because the stakes are so high. At risk are: the lives and futures of millions; the values and honor of the United States; and our strategic interests in a critical region of the world. For all these reasons and more, we should demand more than either mindless bluster or vacuous pronouncements. It is simply too important. And to excuse this behavior as necessary because of political pressures is not an excuse at all. It is just one more indictment of our broken politics.

The media personalities who conduct the debates or the commentators who evaluate the post-debate performances are also at fault. Because they also know or care too little about the Middle East or have, themselves, bought into the failed policies of the past or the ideologies that have created blinders to knowing more, they fail to challenge the candidates’ silly statements.

The result is tragic, because what it means is that we may have another election in which the candidates engage in a substantive debate about health care, entitlements, immigration reform, and the state of our military—but we will not discuss new ideas that might help us decide which candidate is best suited to lead our nation in addressing the region of the world that has helped to define the tenure of every president for the past four decades.

The American people deserve better and the world needs more from us.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share