A Favorable Analysis of Mike Huckabee's Foreign Policy
By Anteater Posted in National Security — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday, Mike Huckabee gave a detailed foreign policy speech, titled "Paths and Priorities in the War on Terror" (transcript, video), at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Mike is the third Republican presidential candidate to give such a speech at CSIS. John McCain gave a speech on energy policy back in April (PDF transcript), and Duncan Hunter presented his ideas on Iraq and border security back in March (PDF transcript). Mike's presentation was the most substantive on the issue of global terrorism.
Note that smagar has recently blogged about a news story that summarizes Mike's speech. When assessing a candidate's position, I believe that it is more informative to work from the entire source itself in order to have the proper context. My commentary will be based on the transcript of the speech. The salient points of the speech are below:
1. Huckabee criticizes the administration's lack of communication both at home and abroad.
“The Administration has never done an adequate job explaining the theology and ideology behind Islamic terror, never done an adequate job of convincing us of their ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is “Know your enemy,” and most Americans don’t. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists – and their suicide bombs – tick, and the Administration has not explained it well.
As a W fan (I would support W over Huckabee if he were still eligible to run), I cringe when someone attacks the President. Unfortunately, Huckabee is right to point out that Bush has not done an adequate job in communicating to the American people the nature of Islamic terrorism and the underlying religious worldview that fuels their desire for jihad. I'm not convinced though that Bush has failed on the diplomatic front.
2. Huckabee supports staying in Iraq until victory.
I have confidence in General Petraeus and the plan he has presented. He has earned our trust by the significant progress he has made in a short time. Things were going downhill fast when the surge began, he has reversed that spiral dramatically.
We will remain in Iraq into the next administration, and I am prepared to finish this war with honor and victory.
I think all Republican candidates (except Paul) are in agreement on the issue of staying in Iraq. In another interview (not this speech), Huckabee blasted Democrats for not denouncing the Petraeus ad:
"If you can't get your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to use those lips to say it's wrong to declare a sitting general ... guilty of treason, how would you ever expect to have the support of the very military you might have to send into deadly battle?
3. Huckabee advocates returning to the Reagan level of defense spending.
Right now we spend about 3.9% of our GDP on defense, while we spent about 6% in 1986 under President Reagan. We need to return to that 6% level.
Would Huckabee spend too much on defense, or is 6% justified?
4. Huckabee is wary of Iran and is open to different tactics for containing Iran.
The bottom line is this: Iran is a regional threat to the balance of power in the Middle and Near East; Al Qaeda is an existential threat to the United States. I know we can’t live with Al Qaeda, but there’s a chance that we can live with a domesticated Iran. There is no way Iran will acquire nuclear weapons on my watch. But before I look parents in the eye to explain why I had to put their son’s or daughter’s life at risk in military action against Iran, I want to know that I have done everything possible to avoid that conflict.
So Mike doesn't take military action off the table, but he does seem willing to negotiate somehow with Iran and also put pressure on Iran's neighbors to help isolate Iran. Personally, I think it's a waste of time to negotiate with Ahmadijihad (or however it's spelled). I agree that it is important to try to find other options (apart from military action), but Iran is really not giving us much of a choice right now. Mike does commit to preventing Iran from ever getting their hands on nukes, which I think is the accepted position among all Republican candidates.
5. Huckabee confirms America's alliance with Pakistan while also reminding us that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia can be unchecked breeding grounds for terrorism.
We have no desire whatsoever to “invade” Pakistan, fight its forces, or harm its citizens. But we have an urgent need to pursue non-Pakistani terrorists who have declared war on us into this no man’s land. I greatly prefer to do it with Pakistan’s blessing and cooperation, but, one way or another, it has to get done.
We need to assure Pakistan that we will be with them for the long haul. In the past our relations with them have been on-again, off-again. When the Russians left Afghanistan, we lost interest in Pakistan pretty quickly. They fear the same would happen without Al Qaeda and the Taliban to keep us engaged. We can’t blame them for not trusting our intentions, for taking our money and running while they can. To the extent that we sign long-term agreements with them, that will show our good faith.
This sounds like a balanced approach to me.
I don't see a real inconsistency in the first "inconsistency" you mention. I think it is good to focus on both short term and long term goals. The obvious short term goals include achieving stability in Iraq (via military might) and also preventing Iran from achieving nukes. This doesn't mean that the long term goals should be ignored.
Regarding the second inconsistency, I would say that (depending on the mission) sometimes a smaller unit is more efficient. It is good to have both "shock and awe" as well as stealth by an efficient unit.
Regarding Iran, I agree that Huckabee should be as tough as possible towards the regime. He did offer some harsh words against Mahmoud:
http://themaritimesentry.blogspot.com/2007/09/news-release-mike-huckabee...
I think Huckabee talked more about Iran in his speech yesterday than what's on his web site. I'll see if I can find other info for you.
Powell Doctrine according to Cato: "The Powell Doctrine held that military force should only be used if there was a clear risk to national security; that the force used should be overwhelming; and that the operation must have strong public support and a clear exit strategy."
I really, really don't think that surgical strikes using GPS bombs and special forces are all that overwhelming of an opponent. Do you?
To me, overwhelming is what we did when we went into Iraq, going in with built up strength and numbers, pounding the opponent into submission.
So if you can find some clarification from Gov. Huckabee about how the Powell Doctrine relates to the War on Terror, that'd be great.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
and also preventing Iran from achieving nukes
You've yet to show us anything that would convince us that Huckabee's approach would have worked better. Absent that, all his harsh criticism in the speech comes off as nothing more than hot, empty air.
Actually, Huckabee's approach, as he's explained it, WOULD have made the Europeans happier with us. OK---I'll give you that.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
which is what a typical voter would do. Even one who spends lots of time following politics and current events.
Go back to my diary. There are plenty of direct quotes from Huckabee. Was he misquoted?
Note that smagar has recently blogged about a news story that summarizes Mike's speech. When assessing a candidate's position, I believe that it is more informative to work from the entire source itself in order to have the proper context.
Tell it to Ed Morrissey (emphasis added).
McClatchy's Steven Thomma believes that Huckabee wants to wrest the "maverick" role away from John McCain, and perhaps some of the straight talk label as well. McCain himself has criticized the Bush administration on foreign policy in the past, but not quite in these terms, and he definitely doesn't counsel closer relations with the mullahcracy in Iran. Huckabee told the CSIS yesterday that the US could turn Iran away from nuclear weapons through the promise of better relations and economic support.
We have tried that approach in the past, though, and it never works. Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all attempted outreaches to the Iranian mullahcracy, and all efforts failed. The Iranians may have seen al-Qaeda as a Wahhabi threat to its own vision of a Shi'ite Caliphate based in Teheran when it offered to assist us in beating back the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan, but they have no interest in helping us protect our assets in the Middle East or anywhere else. The fantasy that 9/11 represented a unique opportunity to engage with the Iranian mullahs is just that -- fantasy. They want Israel destroyed and the US completely out of southwest Asia and North Africa. That's their end game, and it won't change until the Iranian people finally jettison the mullahcracy and replace it with responsible self-government.
So, Anteater---are both of us failing to give Mike Huckabee's words the proper consideration and weight? If so, you should expect the typical American voter to make the same mistake as well. We are not a C-SPAN watching nation. If that's the kind of electorate Mike Huckabee needs in order to be President, then he should look elsewhere.
This was, apparently, a major attempt by your guy to lay out his foreign policy message. IMO he laid a brick.
Don't be mailing me anything asking for a Huckabee contribution---it's going straight into the trash.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I just disagree with it. I think the news article gave a one-dimensional spin to the speech (namely that he was making a break with Bush) without covering all the other important information about his stance on Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, as well as the breeding terrorism in Europe.
Go back to my diary. There are plenty of direct quotes from Huckabee. Was he misquoted?
No.
So, Anteater---are both of us failing to give Mike Huckabee's words the proper consideration and weight? If so, you should expect the typical American voter to make the same mistake as well. We are not a C-SPAN watching nation.
Perhaps. I may be too charitable to him. You are totally justified in linking to a news report. But I still think that the entire speech gives a much more balanced perspective of Huckabee's foreign policy. I am comforted by his assurances:
* Huckabee will stay in Iraq under Petraeus until the job gets done and we leave in victory.
* Huckabee will not allow Iran to go nuclear and he will use force against Iran if necessary (as a last option)
* Huckabee will strengthen American ties with Pakistan while also being wary that Pakistan can also be a breeding ground for terrorism.
What did the governor expect the reporter to do---NOT eat all the red meat Huckabee was handing him?
Thank you for the polite and civil response. But, you're right---we do disagree that this speech was a good thing for Huckabee and reflected well on him. In his own words, he criticizes President Bush for not putting more faith in diplomacy to solve the Iran issue---when diplomacy has failed, time and time again, to sway this Iranian regime. The governor has yet to show us how he'd have succeeded where so many have indeed tried and failed.
As I see it, the governor did this to himself. If he tried to be too nuanced in his message, it backfired.
I'm certainly willing to listen to him clarify what he said. But he needs to do that, or McClatchy's interpretation of his words will stand.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
1. Huckabee criticizes the administration's lack of communication both at home and abroad.
a) Tell us what Mike Huckabee could have said that would have convinced Chirac, DeVillepin, Schroeder et.al to overcome the reflexive pacifism, anti-Americanism and sheer spinelessness in their electorates and commit their flaccid militaries to war with Iraq.
b) President Bush has laid out, time and time again, the threat we face from Islamism. Lots of folks refuse to listen. Does Governor Huckabee have some sort of Vulcan Mind Meld capability, that would change people's minds?
4. Huckabee is wary of Iran and is open to different tactics for containing Iran.
But before I look parents in the eye to explain why I had to put their son’s or daughter’s life at risk in military action against Iran, I want to know that I have done everything possible to avoid that conflict.
Tell us WHAT Governor Huckabee could have done differently---differently from President Bush, and from the European nations who ostensibly gave the world its best shot for convincing the Iranians not to go nuclear---that would have convinced THIS Iranian regime to abandon its nuke program.
You might want to consider retitling your piece "A Facile Analysis of Mike Huckabee's Foreign Policy." But, that would probably be unfair to you. Seems to me that it's Huckabee's foreign policy vision that's facile here.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
a) Tell us what Mike Huckabee could have said that would have convinced Chirac, DeVillepin, Schroeder et.al to overcome the reflexive pacifism, anti-Americanism and sheer spinelessness in their electorates and commit their flaccid militaries to war with Iraq.
As I hinted in my post above, I don't think that Bush failed in the area of diplomacy. So I don't agree with Huckabee on that one.
b) President Bush has laid out, time and time again, the threat we face from Islamism. Lots of folks refuse to listen. Does Governor Huckabee have some sort of Vulcan Mind Meld capability, that would change people's minds?
I don't think that President Bush has really emphasized the implications of rigid fundamentalist Islamic thought and the jihad mentality that accompanies it.
Tell us WHAT Governor Huckabee could have done differently---differently from President Bush, and from the European nations who ostensibly gave the world its best shot for convincing the Iranians not to go nuclear---that would have convinced THIS Iranian regime to abandon its nuke program.
I don't know. Iran is led by a dangerous dictator who believes he is under a religious mission to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. I do believe that Huckabee understands the grave threat that Mahmoud poses and the religious nature of this war.
1. We don’t merely tolerate diversity, we embrace and celebrate it.
2. We have to understand that while educated Muslims in Europe may not be materially deprived, many of them feel socially and emotionally deprived by a lack of acceptance.
3. While there can be no rational dealing with Al Qaeda, Iran is a nation state looking for regional power, it plays the normal power politics that we understand and can skillfully pursue, and we have substantive issues to negotiate with them.
4. If we had had diplomatic relations with Iraq and an ambassador in Baghdad, we obviously would have had better information.
5. While I disagree strongly with Democrats who claim that we are fighting on the wrong battlefield, I am convinced that our focus on Iraq at the expense of Pakistan or Iran is like dealing with a neighbor’s house that is on fire, while ignoring the house on the other side that is filled with carbon monoxide.
Take off the cheerleader hat, and think. Think just how dumb these statements are in the context of an enemy to our country from the days of Barbary Coast pirates to the present.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
I believe that the "information" that he was talking about was the "condition of Iraq’s infrastructure, the strength of its middle class, and the secular nature of its society"
The dumb part is to think a US diplomat would have acquired useful intel about Saddam's Iraq. Saddam kept intel from his own military commanders. How can anybody think that a US diplomat in Iraq would get intel when Iraqi military commanders were deprived of intel?
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
This is inconsistent with another statement on his War on Terror page
Conventional or not, you don't win war by talking root causes. You win war by degrading the ability of the opponent to hurt you, and keeping them down once you've got them there. That means guns and bombs, not aid and diplomacy.
vs.
Here we have another contradiction, unless you think 'surgical strikes' and 'commando raids' count as 'overwhelming force,' which I don't think was the idea behind the Powell Doctrine, was it?
But anyway, lobbing a missile here and there is what Clinton did. And we saw the value of 'commando raids' under Carter. Sorry, I want Shock and Awe.
As for Pakistan:
Yet we don't need to get tough with Iran; Iran only gets mentioned in passing, not even getting a bullet point:
So either Huckabee is backtracking badly, and just needs to update his website, or he's just not speaking consistently on the war.
Either way I don't trust him on it.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.