Wednesday, December 05, 2007

MIKE HUCKABEE

Examining Huckabee's Foreign Policy Vision

Over in the Corner, Mark Levin points to a Powerline post, wondering about Huckabee's readiness in the area of foreign policy.

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 his address at the Council on Foreign Relations in September:

He seems a bit critical of European societies for their treatment of Muslim immigrants: "It is also difficult for us, with our culture of assimilation, to understand that life for European Muslims is different from life for American Muslims.  Muslims in Britain or the Netherlands or Germany are second-class citizens because those countries have more homogenous populations that don’t readily integrate outsiders.  Instead of melting pots, Europe has separate pots boiling over with alienation and despair. In some countries, like France, it is more a lack of economic integration, while in others, like Britain, it is more a lack of cultural integration, but whatever the reason, Europe is a much more fertile breeding ground for terror than the United States. Unintentionally, some of our closest allies are producing some of our clearest threats."

He appears to support reestablishing diplomatic relations with Iran: "The wisdom of Sun-tzu from almost 2,500 years ago is relevant today:  keep your friends close and your enemies closer..."

 "We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost thirty years, my whole adult life.  A lot of good it’s done us! Putting this in human terms, all of us know that when we stop talking to a parent or a sibling or a friend, it’s impossible to accomplish anything, impossible to resolve differences and move the relationship forward.  The same is true for countries. Our experience in Iraq provides a valuable lesson for Iran.  We have since learned that when we overthrew Saddam, we invaded an “imaginary country” because our information was so out of date.  We relied on exiles who had long since fled the country, who exaggerated the condition of Iraq’s infrastructure, the strength of its middle class, and the secular nature of its society.  If we had had diplomatic relations with Iraq and an ambassador in Baghdad, we obviously would have had better information.  So before we put boots on the ground in the future, we’d better have some wing tips there first."

He appears to support limited military action in Pakistani territory without that government's permission: "We have no desire whatsoever to ‘invade’ Pakistan, fight its forces, or harm its citizens.  But we have an urgent need to pursue non-Pakistani terrorists who have declared war on us into this no man’s land.  I greatly prefer to do it with Pakistan’s blessing and cooperation, but, one way or another, it has to get done.  If we have to step onto their soil briefly to protect our own, so be it.  As a child sometimes goes into a neighbor’s yard to collect a baseball hit over the fence, so we may be forced to go over the fence. As commander in chief, our president must constantly balance risks and threats in calculating how best to protect the American people.  We know we are living on borrowed time against the next terror attack.  That risk is far more likely and far graver than the risk that a quick and limited strike against Al Qaeda would bring extremists to power in Pakistan."

I would note that Obama proposed more or less that idea earlier in the year and got knocked around for it.

12/05 11:38 AMShare