US Presidential Candidate’s Foreign Policy Bombshell

© Shutterstock

US Senator Rand Paul’s statements on foreign policy were a huge shock to the system for the Republican Party.

Republican presidential hopeful Senator Rand Paul has finally done the unthinkable: He has opened Lemarchand’s Box and sparked one of the most critical foreign policy debates, which has been avoided since the rise of the Islamic State in 2014. Namely, who is responsible for what is happening in Iraq and Syria? Not only did he directly blame the more hawkish wing of the Republican Party, but he also claimed that they have been wrong about most foreign policy for the past 20 years — cue rancorous indignation.

While this might just be a political strategy or an attempt to distinguish himself from a crowded field of presidential candidates, one unequivocal fact remains and it is something that all people who have lived and worked in Iraq already know: The Islamic State, along with its predecessors, was a result of decisions made during the US campaign in Iraq. This is a very hard truth for most Americans to face, even those who supported the initial invasion, and one that most politicians are not keen on advertising.

Part of the problem surrounding the issue of the Islamic State is that there has never really been a national dialogue on what happened during the Iraq War—or how the removal of Saddam Hussein impacted the entire Middle East. While the 2008 election of Barack Obama hinged on the idea of the war in Iraq, it was mostly a referendum on the performance of the campaign, the decision to invade and the prospect of ending the conflict. There was not a substantive debate on the consequences of US intervention in Iraq or how it impacted the governing structures of the Middle East. The complicity of media outlets and politicians to support the ambiguous circumstances for such a calamitous war has created a truth deficit. And this has undermined the potential for rational discourse on terrorism, insurgency and radical Islamism, which might allow US foreign policy in the Middle East to regain some of traction.

Of course, the political and factional environment of Iraq is also to blame; no US policy compelled the various Sunni and Shiite sects to commit the levels of violence they did. However, what Senator Paul has done is reset the Republican strategy and turned it inward to focus on the original policy miscalculations, which gave space for radical Islamism in the region to take hold and flourish.

© Shutterstock

© Shutterstock

Nonetheless, the blame game is solvent in the Middle East. The current administration also bears its share of foreign policy failures: not supporting moderate Syrian rebels; not fighting to keep a residual force in Iraq after the main withdrawal; and not taking the fight to the Islamic State after the takeover of Mosul.

Yet each of these failures, in addition to the failures that were referenced by Senator Paul, are framed against the idea that military force can somehow defeat the root cause of the very same instability that it helped create. Americans have always been heavily invested in the idea of war as a remedy to problems that are beyond their understanding. This is where the core debate should be framed in the upcoming presidential election in 2016, more so since foreign policy will be heavy on the agenda.

The GOP Response

Unfortunately the responses from Republicans indicate that there is not likely to be any real debate shaped around the provocative but reasonable comments from Senator Paul. Leading party members, presidential contenders and conservative media have already circled wagons and gone on the offensive.

Louisiana Governor and potential presidential candidate Bobby Jindal had this to say on Twitter: “We should all be clear that evil and radical Islam are at fault for the rise of ISIS … And the next President’s job is to have the discipline and strength to wipe ISIS off the face of the earth.”

Jindal’s comments are jingoistic and not the least bit ironic, given they are wrapped in a similar language used by the same groups he is talking about destroying. They are quick to judge, but do not offer any viable alternative to deal with the current complexities of the Middle East.

In a recent editorial, The Wall Street Journal also said: “Mr. Paul is intelligent enough, and his misreading of recent Middle Eastern history is so flagrant, that he might be trying to deflect attention from his own misjudgments.”

To challenge the foreign policy credentials of Senator Paul, while at the same time acknowledging that the “origins of the Islamic State are al Qaeda in Iraq or the post-Saddam Hussein insurgency that suffered a near total defeat amid General David Petraeus’s surge and the Sunni Awakening” only underscores how entrenched certain perspectives have become, since The Surge and Sunni Awakening were not long-term strategies to produce stability, but short-term solutions to systemic problems associated with US occupation.

The problem with assessments such as these—which attempt to reduce the intricacies of the “post-Saddam insurgency” (a terribly misleading misnomer, since the insurgency was directed against the US occupation, not the removal of Saddam) to digestible narratives that suggest the United States was on the verge of victory in Iraq—is that they are entirely reckless. This once again gives the impression that by applying military force alone, the US can defeat an enemy that is not just rooted in sectarian intrigues, but also cultural, ethnic, tribal and historical grievance.

Rand Paul is a Republican for a new generation, and he should be applauded for his willingness to break with policies that have not always offered the United States the best return on investment. The take away from his comments should not be a pedantic nitpicking of details, but about bringing an emotive issue to the forefront of the presidential debate. Hopefully his rivals in the Democratic Party will do the same, as they are also guilty of the same foreign policy fiascos.

The Republican Party should embrace what Senator Paul was attempting to put forward and use this as an opportunity to update foreign policy positions more suited for these complex times.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Christopher Halloran / Eric Francis / Shutterstock.com


Donate image - CopyWe bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a sponsor.

For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.

In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.

We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.

One Reply to “US Presidential Candidate’s Foreign Policy Bombshell”

  1. Utter partisan gibberish. AQAP was completely routed by the end of '07 and its resurgence under a new flag and name is owed entirely due to Obama's pig-headedness in sticking to his always unworkable "withdrawal" from Iraq. Ditto for Afghanistan where almost unnoticed he has extended the stay of US troops to fight the "good" war. If you really want to do an analysis of the mess in the ME caused by the US (not the Imperial UK) you'd have to go back to '53 and Iran. More recently, in the 90's Clinton dawdled - his failure to strike when there was clear in intel in '98 being one instance - while Al Qaeda grew dramatically leading up to 9/11.

Leave a Reply