By using the word “clueless,” I refer not only to Michael D.
Huckabee’s understanding of international relations as outlined in
his Foreign Affairs essay, but the 1995 Alicia
Silverstone teen movie, which seems a surprisingly
relevant comparison, given Huckabee’s opening paragraph:
The United States, as the world’s only superpower,
is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to
the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school
student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if
it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts
to dominate others, it is despised.
More than anything, Huckabee’s essay is startling in its
incoherence, and it has something within it to scare off any
faction of the conservative movement. To those who remain
supportive of President Bush and believe he has helped keep us safe
since Sept. 11, Huckabee writes that “the Bush administration’s
arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and
abroad.” He goes on to echo liberal talking points in criticizing
Bush for his handling of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Al Qaeda. For
those conservatives who believe that Iran does not deserve to be
awarded with diplomatic ties to the U.S. given its “a world without
America” and “wipe Israel off the map” rhetoric-not to mention
funding of terrorist activities directed at Americans in
Iraq-Huckabee thinks we should talk with the Islamist government,
because “When one stops talking to a parent or a friend,
differences cannot be resolved and relationships cannot move
forward. The same is true for countries.” I’m sure there are some
non-interventionist conservatives who may agree with Huckabee’s
criticisms of the Bush administration for being overly macho, and
needlessly confrontational with Iran. Yet what they have to look
forward to in a Huckabee administration would be continued U.S.
presence in Iraq, possible air strikes on Pakistan, a larger
military, and a foreign aid program that would make Lyndon
Johnson’s Great Society look like a trivial domestic initiative.
“We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack
the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic
sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts
— which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope,”
Huckabee writes. “The United States’ strategic interests as the
world’s most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations
as the richest.”
While Huckabee accuses President Bush of being arrogant, he
doesn’t seem to have any problem playing teacher to ignorant
Americans:
The Bush administration has never adequately
explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or
convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is
“know your enemy,” and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp
the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes
Islamic terrorists tick.
And in case you’re wondering, Huckabee understands the enemy,
because he’s heard of Sayyid Qutb.
Then there’s the recurring “if only I had been president I would
have made all the right decisions” theme.
On Iraq:
Unlike President George W. Bush, who marginalized
General Eric Shinseki, the former army chief of staff, when he
recommended sending several hundred thousand troops to Iraq, I
would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his
advice.
On Al Qaeda:
Despite the Bush administration’s continued claims
that the U.S. military will pursue “actionable targets,” according
to a July 2007 article in The New York Times based on interviews
with a dozen current and former military and defense officials, a
classified raid targeting bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman
al-Zawahiri, in Pakistan was aborted in early 2005. Then Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called off the attack at the very last
minute, as Navy Seals in parachutes were preparing in C-130s in
Afghanistan, because he felt he needed Musharraf’s permission to
proceed. Why did Rumsfeld, instead of President Bush, call off the
attack? Did he ask for Musharraf’s permission or assume he would
not get it? When I am president, I will make the final call on such
actions.
Huckabee concludes his article by saying:
Our history, from the snows of Valley Forge to the
flames of 9/11, has been one of perseverance. I understand the
threats we face today. When I am president, America will look this
evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than
ever. It is easy to be a peace lover; the challenging part is being
a peacemaker.
As I
wrote earlier this week, can we really afford to trust somebody
with zero foreign policy experience who has a record of helping to
release the most violent of criminals back into society, to stare
down our enemies?
I totally understand that many social conservatives are rallying
behind Huckabee, because they feel he is the only candidate who
represents them. And I also understand that some Huckabee
supporters feel as though us Northeastern conservatives are being
condescending in our criticisms of Huckabee and his followers. But
for those social conservatives who also view national security as
important, I strongly advise taking a look at his Foreign Affairs article and examining his record as
governor, and asking whether you seriously believe he is up to the
task of being commander in chief during a time of war.