I tend to agree pretty frequently with Charles Krauthammer on national security issues, but I was disappointed in him over the weekend.
Did you see his column assessing the foreign policy approaches of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, which he termed, respectively, “passivist,” “internationalist,” “unilateralist” and “mercantilist.”
There was much of value in the column, and some things to enjoy — such as his observation that Trump’s worldview comes closest to that of King Philip II of Spain (1556-1598).
Of course, I was disappointed that he left out Kasich — I reject the notion that we have no options left but these four. But to his credit, he promised that “If Kasich pulls off a miracle, he’ll get his own column.” Which he would, of course, unquestionably deserve at that point.
Most of his observations are sound, and he is scrupulously careful to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton would likely be less reluctant to take effective action in the world than her erstwhile boss, President Obama. He says her nearest historical analog is her husband’s approach in the 1990s — which isn’t as good as, say, Tony Blair in that decade, but it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
What gets me is the way he bends over backwards to make Cruz’ approach palatable:
The most aggressive of the three contenders thus far. Wants post-Cold War U.S. leadership restored. Is prepared to take risks and act alone when necessary. Pledges to tear up the Iran deal, cement the U.S.-Israel alliance and carpet bomb the Islamic State.
Overdoes it with “carpet” — it implies Dresden — although it was likely just an attempt at rhetorical emphasis….
Really?!?!?!? “Overdoes it?” The fact that Cruz uses that word utterly disqualifies him from consideration as POTUS. Whether he really wants to do that, or merely does not understand what the word means, he is beyond the pale.
Here’s what “carpet bombing” means:
Carpet bombing, also known as saturation bombing, is a large aerial bombing done in a progressive manner to inflict damage in every part of a selected area of land.[1][2][3][4] The phrase evokes the image of explosions completely covering an area, in the same way that a carpet covers a floor. Carpet bombing is usually achieved by dropping many unguided bombs.
And yes, when we think of “carpet bombing” we do think of Dresden, and Tokyo, and Cologne, and all those other places that we sent thousands of planes over in an effort to destroy everything below — including all those civilians.
I’m not going to get into the ethics of our having done that in the course of total war, in a time in which we lacked the technical precision of modern munitions. I’m just going to say that that is what is clearly, unquestionably meant when one says “carpet bombing” — that you’re dropping a carpet of bombs to destroy everything and everyone in the covered area, and let God sort them out.
There is no room in the 21st century, when we have so many other options, for a suggestion like that. The term is primitive, atavistic, barbaric — which is no doubt why Cruz said it, in an attempt to appeal to Trumpist sensibilities.
Yet Krauthammer is completely blasé about it, with that forgiving “overdoes.”
But that’s just the setup to the really bad thing: His assertion that Cruz’ closest historical analog is… Ronald Reagan.
So it’s come to this: That folks on the right are working so hard to talk themselves into settling for Cruz that Charles Krauthammer can equate the Cruz worldview with that of the one guy Republicans believe could do no wrong.
That’s just inexcusable.
Right up until he did that double back-flip for Cruz, I thought he was building a reluctant case for Clinton. Of the four, “internationalist” certainly sounds the least objectionable.
So when he did get to Cruz, it surprised me…
I’m two minds about the “carpet bombing” comment. First, whatever you may think about Cruz, he’s a pretty smart appellate lawyer and understands that words mean things. So I see that argument for holding him accountable for the actual meaning of “carpet bombing”. However, my guess is if you did that, he might walk it back a little. I mean, nobody carpet bombs anyone else anymore. It just isn’t done, ol’ boy.
And I think Cruz would probably acknowledge that, and explain that he was using that phrase perhaps as an oversimplification of how overwhelming the application of force would be against ISIS under a Cruz administration.
Or maybe not. Maybe he really would carpet bomb them. In that case – yeah. He might be a little over the line. Has anyone actually pressed him on this position?
Here’s Cruz’ explanation, in the transcript of a February debate, which Krauthammer linked to:
So, how do we take that? It’s nice that he wants us to understand his use of strategic bombing would not be “indiscriminate.” But we’re left with the fact that he wanted the PUNCH that came with the word. He wanted to give the impression of no holds barred, for pretty clear political reasons….
BREAKING: Politician stretches the meaning of a word in order to curry favor with base.
Film at 11:00.
🙂
But SUCH a word.
Look, folks, when even I think a candidate’s going overboard trying to be macho, WATCH OUT!
Unlike too many (I suspect most) columnists, Krauthammer, whether we usually disagree with him or not, rarely wastes his reader’s’ time.
In this case his analysis prompted your questioning why Kasich’s plan for destrying ISIS was omitted. Hint: It was not omitted, only Kasich was omitted. The latter’s approach (/www.johnkasich.com/nationalsecurity/) for destroying ISIS appears to parallel the “internationalist” (globalist view) that Krathammer does mention.
Furthermore, you say, “The fact that Cruz uses that word [carpet bombing] utterly disqualifies him from consideration as POTUS. Whether he really wants to do that, or merely does not understand what the word means, he is beyond the pale.”
Both history and the tenets of Islam indicate otherwise. Allah’s injunction, “Inshallah”: Surat Al Kahf (18):23-24: ..”And never say of anything, ‘I shall do such and such thing tomorrow. Except (with the saying): If God wills! [Allah willing]'”.
Historically, non-Muslim nations have had to convince ISIS-minded radicals that Allah IS NOT willing.
Again, we must satisfy those sacred words with convincing deeds . Sorry, not only will palliative words, attempts to moderate radical teachings of eacg generation of Muslim youth never stop ISIS, but such efforts allow ISIS more time to strengthen and commit the moral equivalents of non carpet bombing like genocide and 9-11.
In June 1965, 27 B-52F Stratofortresses dropped tons of high explosives on a one by two-mile site containing a communist stronghold in South Vietnam. Our U.S. president at the time of this approved saturation [carpet] bombing was LBJ. Progressives too often marginalize unflattering history. ISIS demands we not.
I do not support lawyer Cruz, but his “carpet bombing” approach will not be beyond the pale until Muslims convincingly adopt their updated New Testament.
Given Cruz’s behavior in the senate, I don’t believe he’s just using “rhetorical emphasis.” I think he’ll try to do exactly what he says. I don’t think Cruz is concerned about what happens to others as long as he achieves his objective. That’s one reason he scares me so much.
“we sent thousands of planes over in an effort to destroy everything below — including all those civilians…I’m not going to get into the ethics of our having done that in the course of total war,”
Ethically, it’s wrong. Morally, it’s wrong. Strategically it may be right.
Happy Birthday, Doug.
Thanks. All I want for my birthday is world peace. Is that too much to ask?
Yes.
How about a pony?
“If you attain success in the war, it will not prove that you were in the right. It will only prove that your power of destruction was greater.”
– Gandhi
True, but winning a war is preferable to losing.
You’d be lucky to get neighborhood peace.
How about Brad Blog peace.