Failing the Rogin Test

Josh Rogin, columnist at the Washington Post, isn’t impressed with Elizabeth Warren:

It should be obvious this week that the United States needs a president who has the foreign policy chops to speak clearly about the United States’ role in the world and has a real plan to keep our country safe. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) ascendance to pseudo-front-runner status compels us to examine if she is meeting that test — and based on her recent performance, she is failing.

“So, look, I think that we ought to get out of the Middle East. I don’t think we should have troops in the Middle East. But we have to do it the right way, the smart way,” Warren said at Tuesday’s Democratic debate. “We need to get out, but we need to do this through a negotiated solution. There is no military solution in this region.”

Realizing their candidate had made a gaffe, the Warren campaign sent out a mid-debate tweet in which “Warren” declared that we need to get our troops out of “Syria,” not the entire Middle East. Campaign spokesperson Alexis Krieg told me in an email Warren “was referring to ‘combat troops’ since we have multiple non-combat bases, in UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc and she did not mean those.”

The Democratic presidential aspirants more generally are struggling with their positions on the Middle East. In general they agree with President Trump’s stated objective of bringing “endless wars” to a close but they can neither bring themselves to agree with Trump nor can they identify what they’d do differently in a concrete way.

Joe Biden’s position is, apparently, to keep the endless wars endless:

In fairness, none of the Democratic candidates has clearly articulated what they would do in Syria, except for Biden. He said Tuesday he would keep the 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria, give them air support and work back to a position of defending the Kurds and using our leverage to achieve our greater goals.

The Kurds are not fools. They would be fools not to be prepared for U. S. withdrawal.

Bernie Sanders made an interesting observation to the effect that there needs to be an alternative other than endless war and total isolation. My alternative would be a tighter focus on actual U. S. security and our grand strategy and rejection of the American Empire strategy we’ve been pursuing. Characterizing the country with more trade than any other as isolation is a canard, a talking point substituting for serious policy. But engagement with the rest of the world should not be at the point of a gun.

21 comments… add one
  • bob sykes Link

    Every one of those bases in the Middle East is a combat base. We have 60,000 combat troops in the Middle East, and likely as many mercenaries.

    Of course, the real fiasco is Somalia. We still have a combat base and combat troops some 60 miles outside Mogadishu. They were attacked by al- Shabab last month. We are going on 27 years of engagements in Somalia.

    Twenty. Seven. Years.

  • steve Link

    We rarely, if ever, choose a president based upon foreign policy. The best we can hope for is a president who will bring in decent advisers and then listen to them.

    To be fair, there are too many trouble spots in the world for a president to be an expert on every area AND be a master of domestic policy. What we should have is someone with leadership skills who can use the advice of a broad array of experts to then develop and articulate broad strategy and then develop specific decisions in accordance with that strategy. It would be nice if, as you said, this strategy didn’t involve invading or bombing everyone.

    Steve

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Except when Americans do choose because of foreign policy.

    Obama won 2008 with his signature promise, get out of Iraq. Bush won 2004 on “stay the course” with GWOT. Trump won 2016 with “fix foreign trade”, “stop freeloading”. Carter lost 1980 in large part from Iran, etc.

    Foreign policy isn’t the sole factor, but it isn’t a minor factor.

  • Immigration is a foreign policy issue. Trade imbalance is a foreign policy issue. Security is a foreign policy issue. Jobs are a foreign policy issue. There’s a lot of overlap.

  • jan Link

    Other than “fix foreign trade” and “stop freeloading,” Trump also promised to bring the troops home, secure our own border, increase US manufacturing jobs, which in turn would help blue collar and middle American workers. Some of these goals have been achieved, while others have been either hamstrung or completely blocked by democrat resistance.

    BTW, what have Democrat’s done, while holding sway over the House since 2017?

  • steve Link

    In 2008 no foreign policy issue made the top 5 in voter concerns.

    https://www.people-press.org/2008/08/21/section-3-issues-and-the-2008-election/

    In 2004 the war in Iraq was the 5th most important issue to voters. Terrorism was #2, and that certainly has a domestic aspect. You can stretch the definition of foreign policy, but that is the only way you make it a top issue for voters.

    “Trump also promised to bring the troops home, secure our own border, increase US manufacturing jobs”

    Nope. He just sent troops to Saudi Arabia (sold them actually), nothing has changed at our border and will need to wait to see if manufacturing changes persist and if it was really due to Trump policies or general international growth.

    Steve

  • GreyShambler Link

    Well…..
    They’ve passed HR397, Butch Lewis Act.
    Still waiting for Mitch McConnel to bring it to the Senate floor. He’s from Kentucky, lots of hurting retired coal miners there. Would also help Trump in Ohio and Michigan Indianna.
    C’mon Mitch.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Instead of looking at what people said after the election, look at what was written during the election.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-obama/obama-says-he-opposed-iraq-war-from-start-idUSN0923153320070212

    Here are two key quotes written the day after Obama announced his candidacy.

    “His early opposition to the increasingly unpopular war is a centerpiece of his stump speech, drawing big cheers on a two-day swing through the state that traditionally kicks off the presidential nominating fight…”

    “The time has come for us to end this engagement in Iraq,” he said, saying he was proud he had been “consistent and constant” in his Iraq message.”

    “I am not clear to how she would proceed at this point to wind down the war in a specific way,” Obama said when asked to evaluate Clinton’s Iraq stance.

    Leaving Iraq was priority #1. And why Obama pulled out of Iraq in 2011.

  • Andy Link

    Obama also campaigned and the Democratic meme of that age, which was that we were losing in Afghanistan because of Iraq. Obama’s Afghanistan “surge” was obviously foolish to me, but I still voted for him that year.

    “Of course, the real fiasco is Somalia. We still have a combat base and combat troops some 60 miles outside Mogadishu. They were attacked by al- Shabab last month.”

    I was in East Africa in 2014 supporting some of that. To call them and many other small presences “bases” is a stretch. Most are more like compounds that sit on someone else’s base.

    The exact number is classified, but the boots-on-the-ground limit in Somalia is really really low and ground “combat” is not their mission.

  • Andy Link

    Campaign spokesperson Alexis Krieg told me in an email Warren “was referring to ‘combat troops’ since we have multiple non-combat bases, in UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc and she did not mean those.”

    “combat troops” does not have any legal definition. Anyone serving in uniform is legally considered a “combat troop” in international law with some exceptions for chaplains and medics in some circumstances.

    The distinction is actually more about the assigned mission and what our forces are legally able to do in a particular piece of geography – and that gets complicated. There is no fine line that separates “combat” troops from other personnel. There are service personnel here in the states shwacking people with drones who go home to their families every night, yet they don’t really fit what Krieg is probably talking about. The air operations center in Qatar runs and coordinates all the air forces which is the tool that is doing most of the killing – not ground troops.

  • Andy Link

    Ok, sorry for continually messing up my email and changing my gravatar icon. I assure you I’m all the same person. I got a new “blogging” email for some sites because someone was putting me on a spam list.

  • I wanted to comment on this:

    What we should have is someone with leadership skills who can use the advice of a broad array of experts

    Our grievous problem is that our present cadre of “experts” have been recommending solutions that don’t promote U. S. interests. Basically, promoting those goals is the price of being admitted to the club.

  • Guarneri Link

    I was going to hold my fire because my plain spoken observations can irritate. But Dave hit it, so…

    “What we should have” is so pitifully banal.

    In my business. Or any CEO. Takes the advice of executives, lawyers, accountants , consultants etc etc etc. but if you sit in the big seat you make the call. And you live with it. And suffer the consequences if you are wrong. No partner. No CEO would have it any other way, or else you have the wrong guy.

    Monday Morning QBs are a dime a dozen.

  • Guarneri Link

    Oops. Hit button too soon. So Dave points out that Trump has advisors and critics promoting their own interests. And only tangential accountability.

    He doesn’t Blanche and shoulders the burden. Wake up people. He’s unique and has the balls to do it. If you don’t like it run for office or vote him out. Otherwise STFU.

  • Greyshambler Link

    “What we should have”
    A president who makes the call even against his top generals if he believes it’s right, and having made the call, you go forward, not commiserating about mistakes made, paths not taken, because that’s leadership.
    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-relieves-macarthur-of-duties-in-korea

  • steve Link

    “Our grievous problem is that our present cadre of “experts” have been recommending solutions that don’t promote U. S. interests.”

    Specifically said a broad array (we only ever get neocons for the most part) and I also said experts. We mostly get political hacks who tell POTUS what they want to hear or are in their position as a political reward. You really think Ben Carson can give useful advice about housing? Steve Miller is an expert on immigration?

    ” Takes the advice of executives, lawyers, accountants , consultants etc”

    IOW make INFORMED decisions. Yes, the CEO has the responsibility for a decision they make, but they also have the responsibility to make sure they have gotten all the info they need to make the best decision. You know that, so stop trying to cover for this A hole.

    “has the balls to do it.”

    My 3 y/o grandson makes decision all of the time. Has nothing to do with balls and everything to do with poor impulse control. It takes zero, as in nada, courage to do what Trump is doing. None. He shoulders nothing. The rest of us pay for the decisions he makes. It is frankly bizarre to suggest that POTUS is displaying courage except in pretty rare circumstances. The most you usually get is “political courage”, risking not getting re elected and even then most of the time the politician really believes what they are doing improves election chances.

    Steve

  • GreyShambler Link

    @Steve
    Curious, who would be your choice for POTUS?
    In the race or no.

  • Andy Link

    “He doesn’t Blanche and shoulders the burden. Wake up people. He’s unique and has the balls to do it.”

    Maybe you haven’t been keeping up on current events, but Erdogan just walked all over Donald Trump’s balls.

    And Trump isn’t shouldering any burden – to shoulder a burden one has to accept responsibility and accountability – two things Trump always passes on to others when things don’t work out.

    The situation with Turkey and Syria is total shit-show that is entirely of the President’s making. He got played – hard – by the Turks and we’ve gotten nothing out of this fiasco. In fact, it’s been completely counterproductive – our relationship with the Turks is damaged, our relationship with the Kurds is damaged, we gave the Turks a strip of Syria – all for what? What benefit has the United States received from this turd burger? He keeps saying he wants to pull out of Syria, but still hasn’t – at least doing that would have made sense.

    One question though Drew, if one of your CEO’s wrote a letter like this for a business deal and some other firm called their bluff, how fast would you boot that CEO’s ass out the door?
    https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/1184559361638748161

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    The US has no relationship with Erdogan or Turkey since the coup (and I argue well before that). Unless you define relationship as adversarial.

    My suggestion is to move all US forces and nukes out of Turkey.

  • Although legally Turkey is our ally, in my view practically it has not been since 2002. The best that could be said is that Turkey is belligerent non-combatant with respect to the United States. Failure to remove nuclear weapons and support from Turkey long since has been remiss.

  • steve Link

    GS- Not paying that much attention to the primaries so no real clear choice. Would have probably preferred one of the moderate governors who dropped out.

    Steve

Leave a Comment