Follow me on Twitter: @mk1157
I must confess, I do not have much time to watch television these days. I’m constantly on the road travelling and the commitments I have to my family and my business take up virtually all of my time.
But the other night I found myself with the rare opportunity to relax with a drink on my couch. I turned on the television and flipped through the channels until I came across Tucker Carlson’s show on the Fox News Channel.
Now, before anybody jumps down my throat: yes, Fox News is certainly a conservative network. And yes, Tucker Carlson can get a tad obnoxious at times.
But when I saw him ready to square off against Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, I knew sparks were about to fly.
In fairness, there was a lot of cable news like theatrics, people talking over each other, petty insults, etc…. that made the segment cringe worthy at times.
However, the main crux of the argument between the two was fascinating and really represents the battle for the soul of the Republican Party on the issue of foreign policy.
Essentially, Boot represents what many have called the “neo-conservative” wing of the Republican Party. This is the group of Republicans who were gung ho about overthrowing regimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and are equally gung ho about trying to topple Iran and Syria while taking a hard line with Russia. They believe this is necessary to spread American values throughout the globe. Think John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Meanwhile, Carlson represents what might be called the “anti-interventionist” wing of the Republican Party. They don’t want to spread American values across the globe. They believe countries all over the world – even ones with evil dictators – are best left alone for fear of backlash against America and the potential instability of what could happen following a forced regime change. They basically want America to mind its business unless there is some sort of major national interest or direct threat to the nation involved. Think Ron Paul.
During the fiery exchange, Carlson challenged Boot both on Boot’s past positions – he vehemently supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Mohammar Al Qadaffi, for example – and current positions – he supports a hard line stance with Russia and Iran and a full-fledged overthrow of Bashar Al Assad in Syria – while attempting to present a case that Boot’s positions are foolish and produce more harm than good. Carlson said that while Putin and Assad are both bad, we have common cause – the destruction of ISIS – and so it would be in America’s interest to work with them on this particular issue.
Boot, in turn, made the case that Russia’s alleged attempt to interfere in the 2016 presidential election made them a hostile enemy who should be treated with scorn. He said we do not have common cause with Russia, deemed them and Iran as our #1 threats, and more or less stuck to his guns that Assad needed to be toppled.
Then it got really interesting when Carlson challenged Boot on what would happen if the United States toppled Assad in Syria, asking him who would take over that country.
Boot had no answer, and in that moment – in my mind at least – exposed the biggest flaw in his camp’s way of thinking.
As Carlson pointed out, Boot loudly proclaimed the Middle East would be a better, more stable place if the United States deposed Saddam Hussein. He was wrong. Boot had similar aspirations in Afghanistan. He was wrong. Boot loudly cheerlead for the overthrow of Qadaffi in Libya, making many of the same arguments he did with Hussein in Iraq. He was wrong again. Now, he argues the same must be done in Syria.
The question is, at what point do we stop listening to these people? What more do we need to see before we realize that just overthrowing one dictator to give way to chaos is simply not an acceptable strategy?
Say what you will about President Trump, but this is part of why he won: because instead of parroting the company line repeated ad nauseum by Hillary Clinton and virtually every Republican primary candidate (with the notable exception of Rand Paul and to a much lesser extent Ted Cruz), he chided these so-called intellectual geniuses for their pattern of repeatedly getting things like this – something that can and has gotten millions of people unnecessarily killed – completely wrong and then paying no price for their repeated failure.
But this really isn’t about the president. This is about the way forward on foreign policy and if we, as a nation, are ever going to learn our lesson when it comes to these issues.
Bashar Al Assad is terrible. I am in no way saying otherwise. But I’m dying for somebody to tell me how he is (a) a threat to the United States and (b) any different from Saddam Hussein in that the cure is likely worse than the disease. I’d also love to know why we can work with some of the most horrific regimes on the planet – including Joseph Stalin, who makes Vladimir Putin look like Nelson Mandela – but simply cooperating with Russia to defeat a common enemy – in this case ISIS – is completely forbidden because Russia may have been the ones behind the dumps of the emails of John Podesta and the DNC.
Let’s put aside the fact that Russia – and every other major world power, including the United States – constantly tries to influence foreign elections to their perceived benefit. If we want to ensure that whatever actually happened in 2016 never happens again, it seems to me that making a concerted effort to greatly improve the government’s cybersecurity might be a better way to go than constantly screaming “RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!!!!!” for everything from a spilled cup of coffee to grainy reception on a television set.
And it also strikes me that maybe if we want fewer messes that we both create and then end up making worse by trying to “clean them up,” it might behoove us to stop unnecessarily agitating conflicts and unnecessarily starting wars with foolish delusions of grandeur and fantasies of the world in the United States’ image.
In other words, perhaps it is time we made the collective decision to stop listening to consistently wrongheaded advice of people like Max Boot. The United States and the world would be better off if we did.