5 QUESTIONS THE RIGHT GOP CANDIDATE MUST ANSWER: JED BABBIN
http://www.epictimes.com/londoncenter/2015/03/5-questions-the-right-gop-candidate-must-answer/
There’s precious little point in trying to get Americans’ attention these days except for speculation about who’s ahead or behind in the race to the presidential election that’s still twenty months away. Though twenty months is an eternity in politics – especially geopolitics – we are so befogged with the daily horserace that it’s almost impossible for the media to cover anything else.
But we must. Now that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx) has formally entered the race and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) is soon to follow, we have to spur the Republican Party to do a much better job of vetting their candidate than they have in the past two races. Here are just few of the basic questions. Let’s make it easier by posing a few questions and giving the right answers.
President Obama is about to announce a ten-year deal with Iran that is, as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu told congress, is a very bad deal. It won’t bar Iran from uranium enrichment or the development of atomic bomb technology, especially including the intercontinental ballistic missiles by which nuclear weapons can be delivered. It won’t mandate unlimited inspections and thus can’t guarantee Iran won’t cheat its way to a nuclear arsenal. Forty-seven Republican senators wrote to the ayatollahs and told them the senate would regard the agreement as voidable by the next president. If you’re elected, what will you do with the Iran nuclear weapons agreement?
The Right Candidate: President Obama said he’s going to keep most of the Iran deal secret. If I’m elected, one of the first things I’ll do is publish the entire agreement. I’ll let the American people and congress chew over it for a month or so while I review it in full and consult with allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. At that point, I’ll almost certainly reject it. At that point, the Iranians should be subjected to intense and effective sanctions. And all our other options will be on the table.
Just a few days ago, Russia threatened Denmark with possible nuclear attack if it joined the US-engineered missile defense network by arming some if its naval vessels with missile defense systems. What’s the right response to this?
The Right Candidate: There are several points that have to be made here. As president, I’d give a short speech saying that nuclear bullying isn’t going to be tolerated. In that speech, I’d make the point that only an aggressor could possibly object to missile defenses and that any nation capable of building effective missile defenses is morally obligated to protect its citizens in that manner. I’d also tell the Danes that we appreciate their willingness to invest in their own defenses, which too many of our NATO allies aren’t. We have to tell our NATO friends that they have to be partners in their own defense, because we can’t pay the tariff alone any longer.
3.
A newly-elected president’s first trip abroad is always significant because it tells the world which nations, peoples and cultures America values most. In 2009, Obama first went to Canada and later went to the UK, France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Turkey. Where would you go and why?
The Right Candidate: A very large part of the next president’s job will be to repair the damage Obama has done to our relationships with our allies. One of the first things he did was to send a bust of Winston Churchill that had stood in the Oval Office, back to the British. In my first week in office, I’d call the British ambassador to ask if he’d return it so it could be in its rightful place in the Oval Office. On my first trip, I’d visit the UK, swing through several of the NATO countries, visit Egypt and end with several days in Israel. Europe needs assurances as well as a bit of tough love. We shouldn’t be paying for the defense of nations that refuse to invest in their own defense. The Middle East is aflame, thanks to Obama’s actions isolating Israel and Egypt. We need to be better allies to both.
President Obama refuses to increase the military budget regardless of the multitude of wars that are going on, but he demands we spend more on domestic programs that feed the liberal constituencies. One radio commentator and prospective Republican debate moderator has written that any Republican who won’t sign up to a bigger Pentagon budget displays a “disqualifying myopia.” Do you agree that the Pentagon budget has to be significantly increased?
The Right Candidate: The military budget has been cut in the most mindless fashion by Obama and his team. But an equally mindless increase in the budget is just as bad. We need to do a careful analysis of the threats we face – terrorism, Russian and Chinese expansionism, Iran’s nuclear weapons program and a whole lot more – based on the best intelligence available. Then we need to craft a national military and intelligence strategy to counter those threats, to deter the threats that are susceptible of deterrence and to defeat the others. Only then can we craft a Pentagon and intelligence agency budget that fits the strategies and ensure we have the right kinds of people, weapons systems and intelligence assets. As long as we don’t do this, we have no real strategy and no plan to implement it.
We’ve been at war for over fourteen years in Afghanistan, almost as long in Iraq and in many smaller fights around the world against terrorism routed in Islam. President Bush assured the world that we weren’t at war with Islam and now President Obama has taken Iran – the world’s most active sponsor of terrorism – and one of its surrogates, Hizballah – out of our threat assessments. Can we ever be safe from Islamic terrorism again?
The Right Candidate: Yes, we can. But to do so we have to engage in an ideological war that Bush refused to fight and Obama surrendered. We need the courage to admit that Islam is not just a religion but is an ideology as well. That ideology requires aggression against non-believers and does not permit peaceful co-existence. We need to attack that ideology and make a practice of comparing the terrorist ideology (which imposes poverty, hatred and death by suicide in many cases) with American exceptionalism. The terrorist ideology has to be spoken of often, disparaged and shown for the horrific wrongs it produces.
Ted Cruz declared his candidacy after only a couple of years in office and little or no experience with national security and foreign policy. We can assume he’s smart enough to get good advisers and listen to them, but we need to know more. On the other hand, Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis) said recently that the most important foreign policy decision in his lifetime was Reagan’s decision to fire the air traffic controllers. To be charitable, he probably meant that Reagan’s strength impressed our adversaries. But it betrayed a lack of understanding of foreign policy and defense.
When I interviewed Mitt Romney in 2008, he showed himself to be highly intelligent and well-briefed but he had absolutely no foundational knowledge to make him competent on national security and foreign policy. If Republicans repeat that vetting failure this time, they’ll lose again.
Comments are closed.
