To be fair to Herman Cain, though, I don't think he is as clueless about foreign policy as some people do. Granted, saying that China is “developing” nuclear weapons would be clearly disqualifying if it meant he actually didn’t know China was a nuclear power. But given that Cain served as a Navy consultant, possibly specializing in Chinese military capacity, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he misspoke.
Likewise, when asked if Pakistan was friend or foe, his much-maligned answer was basically correct – no one knows. Pakistan is playing a dangerous double game and we can only guess the outcome. Anyone who claims to have a simple answer whether Pakistan is friend or foe is a whole lot less qualified than someone who says it is impossible to tell.
Nor do I agree with people who mock his interview about Libya. Granted, it takes him some time to scan his memory banks, access the subject, and process an answer. But when he does, he makes three perfectly reasonable points: (1) Qaddafi was a really bad guy; (2) it does not logically follow that his successor will be any better; (3) we should therefore proceed with extreme caution before supporting the rebels against him. These are, after all, exactly the arguments opponents of invading Iraq made, and they were right. Cain is also on solid ground saying he can't answer whether he would have intervened if he were President because his decision would depend on intelligence about the rebels that he does not have access to.
Likewise, when asked if Pakistan was friend or foe, his much-maligned answer was basically correct – no one knows. Pakistan is playing a dangerous double game and we can only guess the outcome. Anyone who claims to have a simple answer whether Pakistan is friend or foe is a whole lot less qualified than someone who says it is impossible to tell.
Nor do I agree with people who mock his interview about Libya. Granted, it takes him some time to scan his memory banks, access the subject, and process an answer. But when he does, he makes three perfectly reasonable points: (1) Qaddafi was a really bad guy; (2) it does not logically follow that his successor will be any better; (3) we should therefore proceed with extreme caution before supporting the rebels against him. These are, after all, exactly the arguments opponents of invading Iraq made, and they were right. Cain is also on solid ground saying he can't answer whether he would have intervened if he were President because his decision would depend on intelligence about the rebels that he does not have access to.
Cain’s comments may sometimes lack polish, but they show significant nuance and awareness of subtlety. His real problem is that he is appealing to an audience that opposes nuance and subtelty on moral and religious grounds, and quite possible shares their views. So all nuance and subtelty must be eschewed in favor of an approach to foreign policy that would separate our friends (presumably Israel and everyone who toes Israel’s line) from our enemies (presumably everyone who ever disagrees with Israel) and to give absolute support to our friends and
absolute opposition to our enemies. Yet his answers on Pakistan and Libya sound very much like acknowledgements that the real world isn’t that simple.
absolute opposition to our enemies. Yet his answers on Pakistan and Libya sound very much like acknowledgements that the real world isn’t that simple.
If those answers sound a bit awkward, I suspect comes not just from lack of knowledge about foreign policy, but from wanting to impose a simple friend vs. foe framework on the real world and being constantly confronted with evidence that it isn’t that simple. In effect, a man who sees the world in black and white is attempting to process Technicolor and having difficulty. Depending on one's viewpoint, this could be disqualifying -- or it could mean that his foreign policy wouldn't be as bad as his opponents may fear.
No comments:
Post a Comment