Huckabee: Hawk or Moderate?

Korea Times ^ | Doug Bandow

[Tlaloc]

For a time former Arkansas Gov. Michael Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucuses, appeared to be among the most hawkish of the Republican party candidates. But then he criticized President George Bush, angering the hawkish Right.

Where does Huckabee really stand?

Originally Huckabee termed withdrawal timetables for Iraq as ``absurd." The U.S. should do ``whatever it takes to win." Alas, when even your supposed friends want you to leave, then plotting the best way out makes more sense than chirping about a victory which you can't define.

As for Iran, Huckabee contended that ``A president has to [do] whatever is necessary to protect the American people." America ``has a right" to strike, and the president should do so without congressional authorization, Huckabee added.

No one doubts the president's inherent authority to respond in exigent circumstances. But Iran has no nuclear capability and apparently is not even creating one. Nor has anyone shown why the Iranian regime can not be deterred, as was the Soviet Union, by America's overwhelming military might.

What of Guantanamo Bay, which has wrecked America's international reputation? After viewing the facility, he opined: ``The inmates there were getting a whole lot better treatment than my prisoners in Arkansas." He added: ``If anything, it's too nice."'

But the issue is not general prison conditions. It is holding people who may be innocent without providing any procedure to assess their guilt.

At best, one could write off Huckabee's potpourri of misguided sound-bites as reflecting his abject ignorance of international issues. Then came Huckabee's article in Foreign Affairs, America's premier journal of foreign relations.

He opened with words that might have characterized candidate George W. Bush in 2000: "The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries." He warned: ``if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised."

Huckabee hit the administration hard. ``The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterprductive at home and abroad," he intoned.

Huckabee also spoke skeptically of the Bush administration's attempt to spread democracy at the point of a gun. Holding elections too soon can empower extremists, he rightly worried.

Even more profound may be Huckabee's break with the administration over Iran. He recognized that the attack on Iraq wrecked the regional balance of power, strengthening Iran.

Although he would not take the military option off of the table, he added: "if we do not put other options on the table, eventually a military strike will become the only viable one. And nothing would make bin Laden happier than this outcome."

In making his case for diplomatic engagement, he pointed to Iraq: ``Since we overthrew Saddam, we have learned that we invaded an imaginary country, because we relied at the time on information that was out of date and on longtime exiles who exaggerated the good condition of Iraq's infrastructure, the strength of its middle class, and the secular nature of its society."

He offered a devastating critique of current policy towards Pakistan, arguing that Washington ``has erred on the side of protecting Musharraf." But he did not suggest a coherent alternative. ``I will assure the Pakistanis that we are with them for the long haul," he wrote, without explaining what that would mean in practice.

Finally, Huckabee made two truly nutty proposals. He explained: ``The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for achieving energy independence." But many presidents have made similar promises, without result: There is no cost-effective alternative to oil.

Even more bizarre is his proposal for an unprecedented military build-up. Huckabee wants to speed up the administration's 92,000 troop increase. Moreover, he contended: "Right now, we are spending about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level."

Apparently Huckabee fell asleep in 1989 and missed the fact that America's hegemonic competitor, the Soviet Union disappeared. American military dominance has never been greater. Precisely what would Huckabee do with the $800 billion that he believes the U.S. should be spending on the military this year?

Despite his inconsistency, Huckabee recognizes that all is not well with American foreign policy. Although he does not go far enough, his modest heresies may be another harbinger of a slow shift away from the policy of promiscuous intervention that has come to characterize the conservative movement. Such a transformation can't come quickly enough.

[PubliusMM]

The Huckster...all perspectives, all the time.

This guy is a charlatan; a snake oil salesman.

OMG...gotta go. Former Secretary Albright is on FOXNews. I think she goes to Helen Thomas’ plastic surgeon. But, still spouting the liberal pablum.

[FreedomProtector]

Good article. Thanks for posting.

Moreover, he contended: "Right now, we are spending about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level."

[nmh]

Have you met the rest of the charming Huckabillies?

Well, it's time.

Hope this works!

Picture was courtesy of Checkers.

[nmh]

You have me laughing so hard!!!

Good one!

[Eva]

Huckabee a hawk or a moderate? Heck he’s a surrender monkey.

[NeoCaveman]

Huckabee hit the administration hard. ``The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterprductive at home and abroad," he intoned.

Bunker mentality? Hitler was an in a bunker at the end of WWII. Like that?

[NeoCaveman]

The second coming of William Jennings Bryan

Being crucified on a floating cross of gold?

LOL.