Just who is on which side of the debacle in Iraq is a confusing muddle. And that's just among Republicans, here and in Washington. Never mind your Sunnis and Shiites.
U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this week continued his criticism of the White House for its inaction, and called for American air strikes and troops on the ground – yesterday.
Yet word is now out that, this Sunday morning, in an interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will make the opposite case, exonerating the current administration for its 2011 withdrawal of troops from the country.
“What’s going on now — I don’t blame on President Obama,” Paul will say. Instead, he will point to the unfulfilled predictions of democracy and peace that preceded President George W. Bush’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq.
The lightning advance of ISIL, the extremist Muslim group that has swept out of war-torn Syria toward the outskirts of Baghdad, threatens to change the map of the Middle East. But the crisis could also rewrite the book when it comes to Republican attitudes on foreign policy and the use of U.S. force abroad.
In Georgia, the split has become most obvious in the GOP runoff for the 11th District congressional district, where former state senator Barry Loudermilk of Cassville and former congressman Bob Barr of Smyrna are locked in a hot contest to replace U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey of Marietta. There is no Democrat in the race.
At a recent debate, the pair was asked to weigh in on the new international crisis. Barr said he would support immediate air strikes – manned and unmanned. “The targets are clear. There is very little danger, with these folks marching down the highway, of collateral damage,” he said.
Loudermilk, the frontrunner following the May 20 primary, wondered what “clear and present danger that Iraq poses,” noting that his own son – now in the Georgia National Guard – could be deployed. Without good reason, “we should not be engaged,” he said. Further, Loudermilk told the crowd that he didn’t have enough information to answer his own concerns.
Late this week, I asked each candidate to expound on the topic. They shared some points of agreement. Then a congressman, Barr voted to approve Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. Loudermilk said he was in favor at the time as well.
However, both disavowed one of Bush’s primary stated reasons for toppling Iraq’s Saddam Hussein – to bring democracy to the Middle East.
“I’m not a believer in expending resources on a task that is doomed to failure from the beginning. You can’t nation-build,” said Barr. His familiarity with the Middle East can be traced to a globe-trotting father – Barr went to elementary school in Baghdad, and graduated from high school in Tehran. There is also a stint with the CIA in Barr’s background.
Loudermilk draws on his U.S. Air Force experience as a communication specialist in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, keeping track of Soviet – then Russian – aircraft from an outpost in Alaska.
Like Barr, he is no fan of democratic evangelism. “I’m not convinced that the ideology in the Middle East [is such] that they want it,” Loudermilk said.
The two divide over the specific question of whether Iraq is worth more U.S. involvement. Barr says the blood and treasure that we’ve already expended – plus the oil necessary for the U.S. economy – provide an obvious answer.
“I do think there is a proper role to be played – certainly limited, but an important role – in providing some military support,” Barr said. “Perhaps mostly in drone attacks, maybe air strikes.”
We’ve already thrown leaders of Egypt and Libya under the bus, Barr said. “It’s that sort of whipsawing that creates a lot of instability that we’re now seeing,” he said. “We’ve developed a reputation as a nation that doesn’t know what it’s doing, and goes from one extreme to the other at a moment’s notice.”
For his part, Loudermilk said that he is part of a larger shift in Republican attitudes.
Obama’s abandoned proposal to strike at Syria last year provided a lesson, Loudermilk said. “The people said no, we don’t need to engage in somebody else’s civil war unless there is a clear and present danger to American interests,” he said.
Several forces lie behind an increased wariness among voters, Loudermilk theorized. Cost is one. “Every bomb we drop, every plane we send up — how is it going to be paid for? We have an $18 trillion debt,” he said.
Then there is the cost in blood. “It’s not just the lives in theater, but the retribution that may happen through terroristic attacks,” Loudermilk said.
Clarity is what he wants. Back in the days of the Soviet Union, we knew who to fight, Loudermilk said. “We transitioned into a time period – if you’re 13 years old, you’ve never known America without war. But who’s the war been against? It’s hard to define who that enemy has been.”
Loudermilk is no isolationist. But he points to looming crises on the horizon – a rising China and a Russia with hopes of returning to days of past glory, and argues that America needs to keep its powder dry.
The former state senator said he would support U.S. intervention in Iraq if American lives were at stake. Oil could be another factor, he conceded. “But then you have to ask, what are the measures that we would use to protect that interest?”
He admits his less-than-specific answers are unusual for a GOP primary – particularly in debates before large crowds. “We could have fired up the crowd and said, ‘Yeah, let’s drop a couple of tactical nukes over there and turn part of Iraq into glass.’ But that’s not where we are,” Loudermilk said.
Foreign policy doesn’t often creep into congressional races. But it’s possible that, in addition to deciding whether Loudermilk or Barr will go to Washington, the July 22 primary will become a local referendum on what the heck we should be doing in the Middle East.
About the Author
