June 19, 2007
The new Republican front-runner
According to an opinion poll released today, there is a new front-runner for the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2008 - and he hasn’t even officially declared yet. Fred Thompson is an actor and a former senator from Tennessee. Officially, he is still thinking about whether to run. But the Rasmussen poll already puts him one point ahead of Rudy Giuliani, who hitherto has been the Republican front-runner. Other polls have the two men neck-and-neck.
Thompson gave a speech at Policy Exchange, a London think-tank, today. So I went along to see what all the fuss is about. He certainly looks the part - but then he would because he is an actor. He is very tall and exudes a certain authority, which has allowed him at various times to play roles as the White House Chief of Staff and the head of the CIA. His biggest recent part was as Arthur Branch in "Law and Order" - which apparently is a very popular TV show; although when he started to speak he sounded more like "Deputy Dawg" because of his deep southern accent. He already has a well-honed line - ready for the campaign trail - that "eight years in Washington made me long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood."
And what of the content? Thompson was speaking about foreign policy. And I’m afraid that what he had to say was utterly platitudinous.
The US is "an inspiration for all those who seek freedom"; Tony Blair is a "gallant friend" of America; the uncoupling of the Atlantic alliance would be a bad thing. Winston Churchill was a great man; Neville Chamberlain was not so great. We should worry about Iran because - "If we know anything from modern history, it is that when fanatical tyrants pledge to wipe out an entire nation, we should listen." He even had the nerve to quote that Harold Macmillan line about the biggest problem in politics being "events, dear boy, events." Haven’t heard that one before.
Admittedly, he was marginally more interesting in the q&a. He thinks it would be a good idea to blockade Iran, which he describes as a "very, very serious threat." He still thinks it was right to invade Iraq and that there is some evidence that the surge is working. But he is clearly worried that American politicians are going to pull the plug prematurely - "We have a multi-year plan, which the political process might give only weeks or months."
As for the goal in Iraq - "We need to do everything possible to avoid the appearance of utter weakness." And America needs to strive to leave the country in something "better than terrible conditions." That, at least, struck me as a fairly realistic assessment of what is achievable.
I find it hard - or perhaps just alarming - to imagine Fred Thompson as president. He seemed to me to be not terribly bright. Mind you, look at the current occupant of the White House.
I agree with Mr.Rachman. But I still think Rudy Giuliani is the top runner amongst Republicans, which I hope is good.
Posted by: John | June 19th, 2007 at 6:42 pm | Report this commentFred Thompson is top runner for being on TV, he hasn’t been on the debates,people haven’t searched yet carefully into his background etc to find negative things, whilst Rudy is being hit on abortion issues almost every day now.
We should wait for the debates with Fred Thompson.
The fact that Fred Thompson is the Republican front-runner is depressing, not only for the GOP, but for American politics as well. In my view, any candidate who thinks the decision to invade Iraq was the right decision does not deserve to run for president. Any candidate who thinks that threatening Iran with force and sanctions in order to pursue our interests doesn’t understand foreign policy.
Fred Thompson, Rudy Guliani, Sam Brownback, Tom Sancdredo, Mitt Romney, and any other intellectually vacuous GOP candidate that I’m missing should be cast aside as partisan retards.
Here’s my question (and I hope someone can answer this for me): Why does Fred Thompson get all this attention and not someone like Ron Paul, or even Tommy Thompson for that matter?
Posted by: kian | June 19th, 2007 at 11:40 pm | Report this commentIf Republican primary voters decide, in their present anguish, that they want a ‘new Reagan’ then Thompson fits the role a lot better than Giuliani, McCain or Romney.
Posted by: Rory Harden | June 20th, 2007 at 7:21 am | Report this commentKian,
Posted by: John | June 20th, 2007 at 7:45 am | Report this commentRon Paul and people like him don’t deserve attention because presidency is not about Iraq war and foreig policy only. The invasion went bad because post reconstruction was planned badly, no one has proven that the decision itself was bad.
Ron Paul is extremistic in my views, he only goes on anti-war platform. They are anti-war, but they are not foreign policy gurus either.
People don’t like the way the war went after the invasion, not the decision itself. Top runners are: Hillary and Giuliani. They both were for the war. Romney, Thompson, Mccein, Edwards - all top runners except Barack OBama were for the war.
The greatest GOP candidates are not anti-war. Arguably the strongest GOP president in the second half of 20th century is Ronald Reagan, and he was not anti-war. He wouldn’t ever say things Ron Paul is saying.
Posted by: Chen | June 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentAs a Republican I am still looking for a candiate who truly represents my views and has a chance to win. Currently none of the announced candiates impress me or the majority of REpublican voters. The reason for the interst in Fred Thompson is we are looking for someone, anyone. Thompson looks good on the one on one TV interview but has been very unimpressive when talking about specific issues. All his major speaches have been duds.
Posted by: Jim Wilkinson | June 20th, 2007 at 1:23 pm | Report this commentOne he gets in the race he either has to step it up or we will still be looking.
Jim Wilkinson, why don’t you like Giuliani or McCain?? What about Romney?? I heard a lot from republicans that they are still waiting for their champ to come, but to be honest it is a bit surprising to me since Giuliani, McCain and Romney all seem good to me.
Posted by: John | June 20th, 2007 at 2:11 pm | Report this commentI don’t really follow the US politics and the description by Mr. Rachman makes Fred T. sound just another cardboard cut out identikit US politician available for sale to the richest and most powerful interest group. I guess every nation deserves the “leaders” (ha! ha!) that it gets.
However, what really struck me in Mr. Rachman’s article is the time and attention devoted to Iran!
Isn’t it interesting that a militarily weak and economically straitened country like Iran should be obsessively followed whilst the challenges from the likes of much larger threats like Russia, China and Pakistan are ignored?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm | Report this commentPacifist, in the USA China is as also an issue, but its more like an economic issue, whilst iran having nuclear bomb is a security issue. China is not much of a security issue because it is considered to be ‘rational player’. Some people in the USA think Iran could be ‘nation state equivalent to suicide bomber’.
Posted by: John | June 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm | Report this commentUS and China both benefit A LOT from economic cooperation.
Russia is not so feared politicaly probably because it is on downward trend. Though its economy is booming now, in 10,15 years situation will change because of population decline, social problems etc. But people worry about WMD in Russia too because it can get to terrorists hands.
John,
Methinks the US should be sh*tting its pants about Pakistan which already has nukes and is inching towards a takeover by the Taliban-style Salafis.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 20th, 2007 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentI agree with you Pacifist, but there is probably something we don’t know about Pakistan because Bush can call Musharaff any day and see what is going on.
Posted by: John | June 20th, 2007 at 5:11 pm | Report this commentI am sure it is also a concern in the White House and Pentagon. Also, officially because Pakistan is a friend in the war against terror, it is not being politicised.
I agree in Pakistan there are more ‘crazy’ muslims who are a potential threat than in Iran. But US government can contact Pakistani one and deal with them directly. If Pakistan gets officially overtaken by Taliban Style people, then I am sure the issue would also be politicised (which is not a bad thing), and US would do something about it. The main concern with nukes is that they can be sold to terrorists. The US government cooperates with Pakistani one on this issue on Pakistani nukes.
Also Pacifist,
In any way, americans probably care more about who is going to fix their health care program and solve the ‘problem’ of illegal immigration than Iran.
Posted by: John | June 20th, 2007 at 5:15 pm | Report this commentFred Thompson talked about it because he was in London discussing foreign relations issues.
Hi John,
1-) I think Americans are lulled into a false sense of security about Pakistan and are probably in denial. After all, Pakistan is being used as the strategic depth for the Taliban fight against the Nato and is a hotbed of Salafi Jihadism itself.
It only takes an overnight coup by the military (infested with reactionaries) to turn the tables. Musharraf (an aristicratic, foreign-educated general) is by no means typical of the Pakistani military.
2-) Iranians are not as irrational as they are painted. Ahmadinejad is not typical of the Iranian polity and let’s not forget, both constitutionally and actually, he is not in charge of the armed forces or even the Iranian atomic agency.
Those who are (Khamenei and cohorts) are cold, calculating and rational.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pm | Report this commentTo John and Pacifist, I think you guys are talking about some great stuff. Pacifist you are absolutely correct in highlighting the absurdity of obsessing over Iran while ignoring long-term threats like Russia and Pakistan. And thanks for reminding us that Ahmadinejad has no true power as far as Iranian politics are concerned.
John, I think you are also right when you downplay the threat from China because of our economic cooperation. But I think you are assuming that Musharaff will always be in power, when he could very well be overthrown in the coming weeks or months. Also, we need to stop talking about foreign policy and focus on health care, education, and other domestic issues, as you mentioned John.
Also, Iran really isn’t a security threat to us when you think about it. Do you really think that if they obtained nukes they would seriously try to “wipe Israel off the map” or give them to Hezbollah or Hamas. Of course not. That would make no sense. The whole reason these outlandish scenarios are even being propagated in our media is because AIPEC has such a stranglehold on our congress.
It’s simple power politics. The whole reason they want the nukes is in order to stay in power and use them as a deterrent. Why would they use them on Israel? That would devastate not only Israelis, but Palestinians as well. Not to mention, provoke a catastrophic retaliation against Iran that would surely put the mullahs out of power, defeating the whole purpose of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Second, do you really think that they would give these nukes to Arab organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah? Get real. Sure, Iran uses them as proxy forces against a common enemy and to spread the Islamic revolution, but to give them nukes would be a threat to Iranian security!
Posted by: kian | June 21st, 2007 at 1:34 am | Report this commentHi Kian,
If it were up to me, I would give you the prize for the best post of the week.
In the absence of any evidence to justify an attack on Iran, the usual sources in USrael have now come up with scaremongering and demonisation against the Iranians, calling them, as John points out, a “nation state equivalent to a suicide bomber”. This rubbish gets repeated and regurgitated to saturation point to justify another “shock and awe” type attack on another nation that is ill-equipped to hit back or, even worse, nuclear strikes on Iran.
The fact that some of such accusations come from rapture-ready, wild-eyed, extremist Christian-Zionists, and their allies in the US, makes the whole thing even more worrying and disgusting.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 21st, 2007 at 10:17 am | Report this commentTo Kian,
Domestic issues are important. But,
1) I don’t think illegal immigration is a problem to the USA, immigratns help a lot to the US economy. ‘Securing the border’ costs tens of billions of dollars, and these agents ward off not criminals but workers.
2) Instead of reducing the number of H-visas, Congress eliminate the quota or put it at about 1000000 a year. Immigrants will help to reduce the deficit by making American business more competitive and paying taxes.
3) Health Care and Pensions. What democrats want is Big government and put as back into the situation we were in 70s before Reagan came. Budget deficit will soar if health care doesn’t get privatised in some way and will equal like to 10% of GDP.
4) Education. It is EXTREMELY important for the USA. Congressmen complain that the number of applicants to grad positions to the US universities has fallen. Why talented chinese and indians would come to study to the USA if they won’t be allowed to work here?? They would rather go to the UK and work and pay taxes there.
Public Schools are in a bad shape. Who will pay for them?? Taxes?? True, but with pensions and health care expenditure, deficit will soar even more when baby boomers retire, and less workers come into labour markets. Again, immigration would help (because more people of working age), but some republicans worry about this ‘problem’.
I wonder what Fred Thompson thinks on this issues.
Posted by: John | June 21st, 2007 at 1:04 pm | Report this commentDear all,
Ok lets assume Iran won’t sell nukes to terrorists. If it has nukes as a nation, Saudi Arabia, Egypet and all other neighbouring countries will want to have nukes too. If the whole region of Middle has nukes, what will happen?? Without nukes, wars are raging there, with sunnis hating shias, shias hating sunnis, one militias fighting another etc etc etc.
Posted by: Chen | June 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm | Report this commentAhmadinejad has no real power you claim. Ok, but what if in 10 years someoen like Ahdaminejad will become Supreme Leader?? What if Egypet gets nukes and crazy president in 10 years??
Pakistan couldn’t keep its programe in check (Khan…), why would Iran, Saudi Arabia and others will be able to do it?? Is there any proof that they can keep their arms in check?? Militias all over Middle East have access to RPG etc.
Chen,
You are basing your questions on a wrong starting assumption:
Iran has not claimed the right to build or own atomic weapons. Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has acted within her obligations (and, in fact, by consenting to the additional protocols, has exceeded her obligations).
3,500 days of intrusive inspections by the IAEA have not shown that Iran’s actions do not follow her stated intentions.
However, the ranting and raving and warmongering against Iran continues with echoes of what went on in Iraq.
Meanwhile, the US has broken the NPT by providing nuclear technology to India and Israel (both non-signatories to the NPT). The US pursues the development of battlefield tactical nukes, again against the NPT and threatens non-nuclear countries with the use of atomic weapons (an unspoken but fundamental basis of the NPT was an understanding that the nuclear powers won’t use nukes against the non-nuclear signatories).
The way to go in the Middle East is to declare the whole region a nuclear free zone. This would include Israel and outside powers like the US.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pm | Report this commentPadicist, not all Iranians think as rationally as you are. You say ‘Middle East should be nuclear free zone’. Everyone agrees, but some iranians say ‘It is our right to develop nuclear technologies’.
Posted by: Chen | June 22nd, 2007 at 4:30 pm | Report this commentDear Chen,
By “nuclear free zone”, I meant free of nuclear weapons and not nuclear technologies.
We cannot un-invent the nuclear sciences and the world, as a whole, is going to become more reliant on nuclear power, rather than less.
Even Iran is currently expected to run out of exportable oil within about 20 years.
What we can do is to have good safeguards against weaponisation but going around threatening other countries with nuclear strikes is not going to be conducive to progress, nor is major countries’ repeated violations of the NPT.
That’s all.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 22nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm | Report this commentWell, my comp is about to run out of batteries, so let me say quite briefly. Chen if Iran gets nukes, then Egypt and other Mid East nations will pursue them, thats your premise. Okay, wouldn’t you think the same thing would have happened when Israel got nukes? I would, and it didn’t. Iran has never threatened its Arab neighbors and many Arab governments look to Iran today for support. And if you think all the conventional weapons the sunni, shia, or kurdish militants get a hold of is because the Mid East governments can’t control there conventional weapons arsenals, your are mistaken. They get a lot of there arms from rogue arms smugglers from Russia and other states as well, if not from the Russian government itself.
But Pacifist has done his homework. Everything he said about the NPT is correct so I’m not going reiterate it. I just want to make one final point. If anyone thinks that confronting Iran publicly through the media is a fruitful tactic, they are mistaken. You must understand that every country is nationalistic, and that telling them they can’t produce nuclear fuel only provides Ahmadinejad with rhetoric that incites the Iranian national sentiment. You cannot persuade the average Iranian that its okay for America to have nukes but Iran shouldn’t. You just can’t, even though a rational argument can be made.
So by confronting Iran through through the media, the US is only strengthening the very government they want to replace. Things like this must be done behind closed doors, because even if Iran wanted to make any concessions, Ahmadinejad couldn’t afford to make any publicly because it would ruin him politically.
We must empathize with our enemies, not because we’re weak, but because we’re smarter. We shouldn’t be guided by ideology and emotion in foreign policy, but by strategic prudence.
Posted by: kian | June 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 am | Report this comment