Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to the president, penned an article decrying Huckabee's foreign policy. Below, he defends his criticisms of Huckabee's foreign policy:

Labels: foreign policy, mike huckabee

Victor Davis Hanson is one of my favorite public intellectuals. He has been the preeminent voice defending the war in Iraq. He is also very good on illegal immigration and pointing out the liberal bias in education. Really, you won't find a better reasoned defender of foreign policy conservatives. He posts occasionally over at the Corner. Here's his take on Huckabee's Foreign Affairs essay:

I don't know much about Mike Huckabee, but found his aw-shucks Foreign Affairs essay strange to say the least (e.g., cf. "The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad." )

But what he offers inter alia is the rehashed plan of invading the nuclear, nominal ally Pakistan ("I prefer to cut to the chase by going after al Qaeda's safe havens in Pakistan." ) while reaching out to Iran, the de facto non-nuclear enemy, by offering normal diplomatic relations—of course, only after strengthening sanctions and declaring the Revolutionary Guards terrorists. He laments losing the good will once shown by Iran in its 2001 shared goal of defeating the Taliban-almost like lamenting the needless estrangement of the Soviet Union in 1946 after we once had been so close in working to defeat Hitler.

Nowhere is there any suggestion that a new President Huckabee might find the world not all that bad—at least without the Taliban and Saddam, and with consensual governments in their places, without a WMD program in Libya (and according to our brilliant intelligence agencies, one in Iran or North Korea either), with staunch US allies like Sarkozy in France and Merkel in Germany.

Don't know what to make of the Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox evocations and the general prose style of the piece (e.g., "We played Brer Fox to his Brer Rabbit. We threw him into the perfect briar patch")—other than these references and other similar metaphors and similes sound like some beltway policy wonk in DC playing at Will Rogers, or throwing in here and there perceived Arkansas-isms as proof of down-home authenticity.

I think that VDH gets at some of the flaws of the Huckabee foreign policy philosophy. Mostly Huckabee's statements show a lack of depth and understanding. There is very little recognition of what truly drives foreign powers and how we should interact with them. Indeed, Huckabee seems to be at public opinion's mercy. When public opinion drives one's policies, one must talk out of both sides of one's mouth. Huckabee has done just that. He is sometimes the hawk, sometimes the dove with very little intellectual coherence to help see a pattern as to why. This kind of confusion leads to inconsistent positions: overly hawkish towards Pakistan, overly dovish towards Iran, etc. Also, as VDH discussed, Huckabee's analogies seem rather inept. While some use analogies to simplify the complexities of an argument, Huckabee uses analogies to mask the argument, hoping the audience will be asuaged by the utter cute-ness of the comparisons he makes.

Timotheus: Rather than post separately on this subject, I wanted to invite readers to peruse excerpts from Romney's Foreign Affairs essay. Romney's managerial experience exudes competence in all aspects of our foreign policy. Looking at that side by side with Huckabee's should be a real eye opener. Besides, do you really want a guy who has a soft spot for ciminals in charge of protecting America from terrorists? I don't think so.

And this from the AP: "'I can't believe he'd say that. I'm afraid he's running from the wrong party,'" Romney said to a gathering of about 100 supporters in a restaurant here. "'I had to look again — did this come from Barack Obama or from Hillary Clinton? Did it come from John Edwards? No, it was Governor Huckabee.'"

Labels: foreign policy, mike huckabee, Victor Davis Hanson

There are a couple of items out today about Huckabee's foreign policy:

From Powerline's Paul Mirengoff:

My main objection to Huckabee -- the reason why he's my fifth choice out of five -- is that I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism. It's not just that he lacks experience in this realm, though that's certainly the case. The real problem is that he's too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral). My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because "we broke it." Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state. Huckabee's exaltation of moralism (in this case dubious) over policy calculation was difficult to miss.

Now we learn (but are surprised) that Huckabee opposes waterboarding and would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Huckabee reached this conclusion after meeting with a group of retired generals (the usual suspects, I assume) who are lobbying candidates to oppose Bush administration interrogation and detention policies.

I suspect that Huckabee required little lobbying. Waterboarding and long-term detention aren't very "Christian"; they merely keep terrorists out of action and, in special circumstances enable us to find out where we're going to be attacked next and/or where we can find those who are planning the next attacks. But if Huckabee actually did reach his position based on the views of a handful of generals, and without consulting the people actually charged with protecting this country from terrorists, then he's even less qualified to be president than I suspect.

Also from Powerline's Paul Mirengoff:

When it comes to foreign policy, Huckabee more closely resembles another former governor, Jimmy Carter. It was Carter, not Reagan, who viewed foreign policy as an extension of his own character and personal principles. Carter stood for a foreign policy "as decent as the American people." Reagan stood for defeating our enemies. When Huckabee frets about how Gitmo is making us appear to foreigners, when he asserts that "we broke Iraq," and when he says he's qualified to be commander-in-chief because of his character rather than because of his understanding of our enemies, it's pretty clear that his foreign policy roots extend nowhere near the fertile soil of Reaganism.

This extends on the argument I made here on Monday, making the comparison between Huckabee and Jimmy Carter on domestic issues. In the same Powerline post, Scott Johnson says that Huckabee's moralistic approach extends to domestic issues also:

Generally speaking, moralism in both foreign and domestic policy is a form of intellectual laziness. Again, "moralism" does not equal "morality." We can all agree that our government should do what is morally right. But determining what is morally right requires a hard-headed attention to the consequences of any particular policy, and an assessment of those consequences in the context of a coherent philosophy. The moralist, in contrast, doesn't want to be bothered either with the facts or with philosophic coherence. Instead, he enshrines his own feelings and preferences--or, very likely, prejudices--as public policy. As in, "Smoking is really bad, so let's ban it." Mike Huckabee appears to fit squarely within this tradition.

From Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot. Picking up on the Powerline post Geraghty includes specific foreign policy ideas and accompanying quotes supporting Powerline's assessment:

Beyond Huckabee's skepticism about the benefits of free trade and the "moralism" discussed at that link, there are a couple other areas where his foreign policy views are unorthodox from mainstream conservative thinking. One can agree with them or disagree with them - I think he makes a stronger case for these policy changes than those who agree with him on the left do - but they are worth noting.

From Jonathan Martin at the Politico:

My colleague David Paul Kuhn attended an on-the-record dinner with Mike Huckabee and a group of reporters tonight in Des Moines.

The transcript speaks for itself:

Kuhn: I don’t know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday...

Huckabee: I’m sorry?

Kuhn: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it —

Huckabee: No.

Kuhn: Have you heard of the finding?

Huckabee: No.

Labels: foreign policy, mike huckabee