In the past week, the leading hopefuls for the Republican presidential nomination weighed in on and clashed over American policy in the Middle East -- with many of them showing signs of backing away from Bush-era interventionism.
During the CNN/Tea Party Express debate in Tampa on Monday, the candidates clashed on Middle Eastern affairs. Repeating his calls for less American intervention in the region, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas argued that military operations overseas have failed -- and have left taxpayers holding the bill.
There's a difference between military spending and defense spending. I'm tired of all the militarism that we are involved in. And we're wasting this money in getting us involved. And I agree, we are still in danger, but most of the danger comes by our lack of wisdom on how we run our foreign policy, Paul said.
So I would say there's a lot of room to cut on the military, but not on the defense. You can slash the military spending. We don't need to be building airplanes that were used in World War II -- we're always fighting the last war. But we're under great threat, because we occupy so many countries. We're in 130 countries; we have 900 bases around the world. We're going broke.
The purpose of al-Qaida was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us. And they have been doing it, continued Paul. They have more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11, but we're there occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we're kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country --say, China --did to us what we do to all those countries over there?
As he had in previous debates, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania challenged Paul on the issue.
On your website on 9/11, you had a blog post that basically blamed the United States for 9/11. On your website, yesterday, you said that it was our actions that brought about the actions of 9/11, Santorum told Paul. Now, Congressman Paul, that is irresponsible. The president of the United States -- someone who is running for the president of the United States in the Republican Party -- should not be parroting what Osama bin Laden said on 9/11.
We're not being attacked and we were not attacked because of our actions, Santorum said. We were attacked, as Newt (Gingrich) talked about, because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists. And they want to kill us because of who we are and what we stand for. And we stand for American exceptionalism, we stand for freedom and opportunity for everybody around the world, and I am not ashamed to do that.
Paul promptly responded to Santorum and expanded on his position.
As long as this country follows that idea, we're going to be under a lot of danger. This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this, and they're attacking us because we're free and prosperous, that is just not true, he fired back. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida have been explicit -- they have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing ...
At this point, some in the crowd started booing.
I didn't say that, Paul clarified. I'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing; at the same time we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you're not annoyed, then there's some problem.
While the clash between Paul and Santorum was one of the more dramatic moments in the debate, some of the other candidates weighed in on American policy in the region, as well.
In response to an audience question, former Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah called for a reduced American presence in Afghanistan.
We are 10 years into this war, said Huntsman. America has given its all in Afghanistan. We have families who have given the ultimate sacrifice. And it's to them that we offer our heartfelt salute and a deep sense of gratitude. But the time has come for us to get out of Afghanistan.
Huntsman continued after receiving applause from the crowd.
We don't need 100,000 troops in Afghanistan nation-building at a time when this nation needs to be built. We are of no value to the rest of the world if our core is crumbling, which it is in this country, Huntsman said. I like those days when Ronald Reagan ... would ensure that the light of this country would shine brightly for liberty, democracy, human rights, and free markets. We're not shining like we used to shine. We need to shine again.
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who is leading most of the national polls, agreed with Huntsman for the most part.
I agree with Governor Huntsman when we talk about it's time to bring our young men and women home and as soon and, obviously, as safely as we can. But it's also really important for us to continue to have a presence there. And I think the entire conversation about, how do we deliver our aid to those countries, and is it best spent with 100,000 military who have the target on their back in Afghanistan? I don't think so at this particular point in time, Perry said.
I think the best way for us to be able to impact that country is to make a transition to where that country's military is going to be taking care of their people, bring our young men and women home, and continue to help them build the infrastructure that we need.
After the debate, the candidates continued to focus on the Middle East.
The Perry team attempted to walk back their candidates comments in the debate about a speedy withdrawal from Afghanistan -- leading to the Huntsman camp throwing jabs at the Texas governor on the matter.
Governor Perry's attempt to walk back his support for Governor Huntsman's position on Afghanistan shows a fundamental lack of leadership and understanding of foreign policy, said Randy Schriver, a Huntsman adviser on foreign policy, in a statement released late Thursday. We need to send a clear message to the world that we understand the asymmetrical threat we face and will respond with counterterror forces, intelligence gathering, and a limited number of troops to train Afghan forces. This does not require 100,000 boots on the ground in Afghanistan. We need to bring those troops home.
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, continuing his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, took aim at President Barack Obamas Middle East policy on Wednesday.
While Americans have been focused on the economy and domestic politics, the Middle East has been deteriorating in very threatening ways, Gingrich noted in an e-mail to supporters. In the last few months, events have begun to turn against the United States, Israel, and freedom in the Middle East."
Gingrich insisted the United States is losing ground in Iraq because Iran is "on offense" in that country. The former congressional leader railed against Obamas plans to reduce the number of American military personnel in Iraq, arguing that it would be safer to pull out all troops from that nation.
The Obama administration's decision to reduce the American military presence in Iraq to 3,000 creates the potential for a catastrophic disaster, Gingrich wrote. Since the Army deploys in brigades of 5,000, splitting up a brigade can only signify a political calculation. Yet, a small American military force will not be able to defend itself. The Obama administration is creating a tempting target for the Iranian radicals to see if they can humiliate us. It would be much safer to pull all the troops out than to leave so few that they are in peril.
Gingrich also called for shutting down the current embassy in Baghdad.
The American embassy in Baghdad is an absurdity, continued Gingrich. It was designed when we were on the way to being the dominant power in Iraq. It covers too much space, has too much staff, and requires 3,650 people to defend it on a billion-dollar contract, while thousands more work inside. Sustaining something on this scale is going to be very expensive and yield no results of comparable value. This embassy should be closed and a very modest and defensible building should replace it.
Gingrich also warned of other potential problems in the region including an increasingly Islamist regime in Turkey, aggressive governments in Iran and Syria, and continued upheaval in Egypt. The former congressional leader noted that he opposed efforts in the U.N. to recognize a Palestinian state.
As he had during recent weeks, Gingrich kept his fire on President Barack Obama instead of his rivals for the Republican nomination.
Despite all of these events, there is no evidence the Obama administration has any idea how dangerous the world is becoming, or that it has a plan to deal with them, wrote Gingrich.
Agreeing with Gingrich, Perry took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post to write an op-ed that appeared on Friday calling for the U.N. to not recognize Palestine.
Reach Kevin Derby at kderby@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859.
