Republicans and Foreign Policy
NYT editorial
For a while, we were concerned that the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination were not saying much about national security and foreign affairs. Now that a few have started, maybe they were better off before.
Certainly, the Republican hopefuls have put to rest any lingering notion that their party is the one to trust with the nation’s security. The United States is involved in two wars with more than 100,000 troops overseas. China is rising, relations with Pakistan are plummeting, Iran and North Korea are advancing their nuclear programs. The Middle East is in turmoil. Yet the candidates offer largely bad analysis and worse solutions, nothing that suggests real understanding or new ideas.
Some made weak attempts to resurrect Reagan-era ideas about American leadership that make no sense today. Accusing President Obama of being weak or refusing to lead is ludicrous when you consider all he has done to repair the damage his predecessor did to America’s standing in the world. Then there was that small matter of assassinating Osama bin Laden. The Republican hopefuls seem to know that their main talking point is to criticize Mr. Obama, but, when it comes to global affairs, they are not quite sure how or why.
How else to describe the answer from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas at a recent debate when asked what he would do if the Taliban took control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? He jumbled up names and facts and ended up accusing Washington of refusing to sell F-16s to India, which actually had declined to buy the combat planes.
(More here.)
For a while, we were concerned that the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination were not saying much about national security and foreign affairs. Now that a few have started, maybe they were better off before.
Certainly, the Republican hopefuls have put to rest any lingering notion that their party is the one to trust with the nation’s security. The United States is involved in two wars with more than 100,000 troops overseas. China is rising, relations with Pakistan are plummeting, Iran and North Korea are advancing their nuclear programs. The Middle East is in turmoil. Yet the candidates offer largely bad analysis and worse solutions, nothing that suggests real understanding or new ideas.
Some made weak attempts to resurrect Reagan-era ideas about American leadership that make no sense today. Accusing President Obama of being weak or refusing to lead is ludicrous when you consider all he has done to repair the damage his predecessor did to America’s standing in the world. Then there was that small matter of assassinating Osama bin Laden. The Republican hopefuls seem to know that their main talking point is to criticize Mr. Obama, but, when it comes to global affairs, they are not quite sure how or why.
How else to describe the answer from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas at a recent debate when asked what he would do if the Taliban took control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? He jumbled up names and facts and ended up accusing Washington of refusing to sell F-16s to India, which actually had declined to buy the combat planes.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home