Jeb Bush has amassed a sizable war chest and positioned himself to be the safe establishment pick after Donald Trump’s expected implosion. Alas, on foreign policy Bush has turned hard right.
“Our security,” he recently claimed, is “in the balance.” Yet the U.S. continues to dominate the globe as no other nation before it.
Moreover, Bush contended, “if we withdraw from the defense of liberty elsewhere, the battle of eventually comes to us anyway.” Actually, the world long has been filled with horror which Washington has successfully avoided.
Bush followed the Republican stereotype in demanding more military spending. “We are in the seventh year of a significant dismantling of our own military,” he falsely claimed. Real spending continued to increase until 2012.
In Bush’s view two and a half percent of GDP for the Pentagon is too low. But as Ronald Reagan observed, military spending should reflect the threat environment, which is vastly improved. Bush seemed to recognize this reality when he suggested a strategic review since “the world’s changed. I mean, we’re, the Soviets aren’t going to launch a tank attack across Eastern Germany into Germany.”
Very true. He should launch a strategic review first, which would suggest fewer defense responsibilities and thus lower military outlays.
Bush first called his brother’s policy in Iraq “a mistake.” More recently, however, he declared that ousting Saddam Hussein was a “pretty good deal.”
Maybe so, I pointed out in Forbes, “if you don’t count dead Americans, dead allied personnel, dead Iraqis, widespread sectarian violence, mass refugee flows, increased Iranian influence, regional instability, and the rise of the Islamic State.”
Bush misleadingly argued that ISIS “didn’t exist when my brother was president” and that a continued U.S. military presence “would not have allowed” the group to flourish. This is false.
ISIS is an outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which developed in response to George W.’s invasion. The group grew in opposition to the U.S. occupation and Shia-majority regime installed by Washington.
Alas, the famed “surge” did not foster sectarian reconciliation, as intended. ISIS exploded when the Sunni Awakening went into reverse in response oppressive sectarian policies begun by the Iraqi government under George W., who also failed to win approval of a status of forces agreement and continued U.S. military presence. Obama only followed the Bush timetable.
Nor would a continuing presence of U.S. troops have achieved much, unless augmented and used in continuing anti-insurgency operations—contrary to the fervent desire of most Americans. And maintaining the military occupation would have provided a target for radicals of every sectarian viewpoint.
Nevertheless, Jeb urged a new war dedicated to “throwing back the barbarians of ISIS, and helping the millions in the region who want to live in peace.” Actually, those millions, rather than Americans, should fight ISIS.
Even scarier, Bush proposed that Washington join Syria’s civil war. He urged “a coordinated, international effort” to strengthen increasingly ineffective moderate forces. Worse, Bush advocated not only a “no-fly zone” but “multiple safe zones,” which would require substantial and sustained U.S. military involvement.
He complained that the administration didn’t deal with Iran’s malignant regional behavior. True, because Washington focused on the far more important issue of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Bush advocated additional sanctions, which would not have been matched by other nations. He also recommended that Washington support the Iranian opposition, as if the Islamist regime would allow increased international interference promoting its ouster.
Bush contended that America’s “alliances need rebuilding.” Which means increasing subsidies for rich industrialized states, which are capable of defending themselves. Bush also believes in placating authoritarian governments—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others. So much for democracy and liberty.
Finally, like other Republican presidential wannabes, Bush is oblivious to the consequences of U.S. policy. Droning, bombing, invading, and occupying other nations create blowback. While Washington’s behavior doesn’t justify terrorism, promiscuous intervention helps explain it.
Americans can’t afford a rerun of Dubya’s disastrous presidency.