Foreign policy and international issues tend to become significant subjects in presidential campaigns, although many experts anticipated the current campaign would turn on economic issues. And there are clearly economic problems, particularly the uneven recovery from the 2007-8 financial crisis. However, driven by growing fears and concerns about terrorism, national security and international affairs have taken center stage and generated an abundance of overheated and unrealistic rhetoric in the process.
Republican candidates place blame for almost all troubles, real and imagined, on what they see as weakness or inaction by the Obama administration.
Several GOP candidates declare they would quickly wipe out terrorists. They don't talk about how they would accomplish this or the costs and longer-term commitment involved. It's easy for candidates to fulminate about taking action without really considering the consequences or recognizing that effective policy often relies on a multilateral approach, involving other nations to work with us -- not cowboy unilateralism. Do we really believe China would meekly take marching orders from Donald Trump?
Swagger and tough talk don't constitute policy. Exaggerated claims and promises may fire up domestic audiences but often just provide fodder for critics and enemies of the United States.
Here's an example: When Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump, she spoke about her son, who was arrested on domestic abuse charges after allegedly fighting with his girlfriend. Referring to his service in Iraq in 2008, she said "My son, like so many others, they came back a bit different. They came back hardened." She said not enough was done to treat the "woundedness" of returning veterans and placed blame on President Obama. Among the many misdirected dimensions of her comments, she overlooks an obvious point. Those, like Palin, who push for more U.S. military intervention in troubled regions, seem to overlook that this would inevitably lead to yet more cases of traumatic impact on those who serve in combat zones. Indeed, policymakers and budgeters fail to consider the long-term effects and costs for veterans' care.
There are, of course, numerous examples of bellicose and demeaning comments from this campaign. Consider recent events related to Iran, including the U.S. boat incident and the "prisoner exchange," all in the midst of the implementation of the intricately negotiated nuclear deal with Iran and six nations.
We know little about the boat incident except for a video clip of American sailors with hands on their heads and one of the sailors saying entering into Iranian territorial waters "was a mistake that was our fault and we apologize." The sailors were released to the U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf the following day. The Pentagon said only that the small riverene crafts were involved in "misnavigation.
The incident evoked memories of the infamous 1964 Tonkin Gulf episode when the Johnson administration hyped events off the Vietnam coast to indicate U.S. ships had been attacked by North Vietnamese vessels. It subsequently became evident that what occurred was greatly exaggerated, but it was a turning point in expanding American involvement in the war.
Several candidates criticized Obama for not being "tough" in response to the Iran boat incident. Ted Cruz immediately proclaiming "any nation that captures our fighting men and women will feel he full force and fury of the United States," not acknowledging that it was not a hostile situation and diplomacy quickly avoided a crisis.
Another diplomatic success involved the release of five Americans held in Iranian prisons, apparently in exchange for seven Iranians charged with violating economic sanctions. Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a major Republican foreign policy spokesman, said he welcomed the release, but said Obama had "appeased Iran's terror-sponsoring ayatollahs" and had exchanged terrorists and criminals.
Obama's critics had repeatedly denounced him for not obtaining release of the Americans as part of the nuclear deal. (Trump had said those detained by Iran would never be released under the Obama administration.) Even hard-line commentator Charles Krauthammer saw the folly of denouncing this swap. To those saying we shouldn't negotiate with "terror states," we do and we should, he said. "How else do you get hostages back?"
Obama's administration favors carefully gauged use of power and patient and effective use of diplomacy. It doesn't always work and at times the president comes off as unduly detached. But there's little reason to believe that bombast and swagger will produce desired results.
Commentary on 01/28/2016