So many things are happening in Washington, so fast and so quickly, that if you don’t comment on them immediately, you may miss the chance to do so, because people have moved on to the next big thing – or the one after that. But I think something JD Vance back on April 15 needs to be commented on, even if I am late in doing so, because (i) it’s wrong (on Iraq), (ii) it says a lot about how Trump supporters view US foreign policy and the world (also wrongly, in my view), and (iii) what it perhaps says about Vice President Vance.
In a conversation on UnHerd, a British site, Vice President Vance was talking about Europe, how much he loves Europe and Europeans. And then he said this:
“Something I know a little bit more personally: I think a lot of European nations were right about our invasion of Iraq. And frankly, if the Europeans had been a little more independent, and a little more willing to stand up, then maybe we could have saved the entire world from the strategic disaster that was the American-led invasion of Iraq.”
1. Vice President Vance served in Iraq, as a Marine, for six months in 2005. Which means he may know a little about our involvement in Iraq, but it doesn’t mean, by itself, that he knows a lot. He may know about 2005, but that was pretty much the low point of our time in Iraq, when our strategy and tactics were wrong and not working. Being in Iraq in 2005 doesn’t tell you anything about what happened beginning in late 2006, when General David Petraeus changed what we were doing in Iraq and how we were doing it, as part of the “surge,” with Ambassador Ryan Crocker allied with him on the diplomatic side. Not to mention George W. Bush’s hands-on approach in 2007-08.
If we had followed General Petraeus’s ideas from the beginning of our time in Iraq, we would have done a better job in Iraq and quicker. Unfortunately, the “No More Vietnams” syndrome prevented the Army from being ready to do that in 2003 and 2004. But, once we started doing it right, things got much better. (Unfortunately, the Obama administration did not follow through on this success.)
Also, being in Iraq in 2005 doesn’t give you any special insight to the diplomacy leading up to the war in 2003. In spite of what Vice President Vance says, both France and Germany were very vocal in their opposition to US action against Saddam Hussein. France and Germany were very “independent” and very “willing to stand up” and oppose the US position. There is a reason people started calling them “freedom fries” in 2003.1
2. President Trump seems to be pushing an isolationist, get-out-of-the-world approach to foreign policy. He calls it “America First”, as if a policy of trying to preserve peace doesn’t help America. He thinks we have been taken advantage of for decades and we need to stop letting this happen. It may be true that, in the recent past, other countries have not done as much as we have (and that needs to change), but we have gotten value out of what we have done, even if other countries didn’t pay their fair share – because defense is a lot cheaper than war. It may be annoying that other countries didn’t do as much as we did, but is it so annoying that we should risk war now to spite them?
Isn’t the best idea to get other countries to do more now, so peace can be maintained? I understand that may not be easy. Until Vladimir Putin fully invaded Ukraine in 2022, as opposed to his “little” invasion in 2014, most of Europe was willing to shut its eyes and ignore the problem. President Trump tried to get NATO to spend more in his first term, and President Biden tried, too. The Baltics and Poland, who understand Russia, did some. But it took 2022 to really get Europe’s attention. It is unfortunate it took so long, but now that they are paying attention, why not take advantage of it? If you are going to a fight or, more importantly, if you want to deter a fight, it helps to have lots of friends with you. Why chase them away?
3. I don’t know what Vice President Vance really believes about foreign policy. He has sounded so much like President Trump and has tried so hard to appeal to MAGA Republicans, in a way that he didn’t seem to do before he ran for Senate2, that it makes me wonder. I understand people can change their views in response to different facts and different situations, but I wonder if that is what happened here. Perhaps I am being too cynical (though when it comes to politicians, I find it is almost impossible to be too cynical). However, Vice President Vance’s changes fit so well with the particular political path he has trod in the last four years, I have to wonder if they are what he really believes or something else.
-----------
1 Also, one wonders how much of France’s opposition to what the US was proposing to do in Iraq was about losing out on business deals with Saddam Hussein’s regime and how much was about any supposed strategic disaster.
2 See here.
Comments