What do the Republican hawks hate about Obama? George W. Bush had little foreign policy knowledge, remember he didn’t know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni in the lead up to the invasion and occupation of the Iraq war, but he did have “swagger.” That’s what the hawks hate about Obama – he lacks swagger. He is cautious and deliberate. Michael Barbaro takes a look at Chris Christie’s foreign policy and finds it lacking in substance but full of swagger.[icopyright one button toolbar]
It was not, according to several of those in attendance, a tough or unexpected inquiry. But Mr. Christie, usually known for his oratorical sure-footedness, offered an uncharacteristically wobbly reply, displaying little grasp of the facts and claiming that if he were in charge, Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, would know better than to mess with him.
According to an audio recording of the event, he said Mr. Putin had taken the measure of Mr. Obama. “I don’t believe, given who I am, that he would make the same judgment,” Mr. Christie said. “Let’s leave it at that.”
One attendee described Mr. Christie’s answer as disturbingly heavy on swagger and light on substance. Another called it “uncomfortable to watch.”
Just look at what George W Bush’s lack of knowledge and swagger gave us – a failed invasion and occupation of Iraq that our grandchildren will still be paying for decades from now. Daniel Larison chimes in.
The striking thing in this story is that Christie’s lack of knowledge of these issues isn’t considered automatically disqualifying. We have seen this too many times in our presidential politics: a governor aims to run for higher office, but hasn’t a clue about foreign policy, and so we are treated to a series of quotes from various partisans that this person “has a lot of work to do” but shouldn’t be dismissed on account of ignorance. Why not say instead that the politician isn’t remotely qualified for the higher office and leave it at that? That would certainly apply to Christie, and it would apply to more than a few of his possible 2016 competitors.
Larison sums up Republican foreign policy here:
The bigger problem for the GOP is that most of its would-be presidential candidates are just as bad as Christie when it comes to being “heavy on swagger and light on substance.” Republican politicians assume that they can get away with this because most of their party’s foreign policy professionals and pundits are only too happy to make excuses for them or cut them too much slack because they happen to have the right “instincts.” These politicians don’t put much effort into educating themselves on these issues, and so they have to resort to swagger and demagogic rhetoric to demonstrate “toughness” because they would otherwise have nothing to say. Since there is no degree of ignorance about foreign policy that won’t be tolerated for hawkish candidates (see Romney, Mitt), Republican hawkish politicians have no incentive to learn more than the standard talking points and have nothing to fear from being “light on substance.”
George W Bush’s problem wasn’t that he was stupid but that he lacked curiosity when it came to foreign policy. The same applies to Christie and most of the other Republican hopefuls because they don’t see it as necessary. I don’t always agree with Obama’s foreign policy but I don’t have a problem with his lack of “swagger.”