Election Issues: The Middle East
“What Is Aleppo?” Most people could be forgiven for being unable to answer this question. Middle Eastern cities, and the war in Syria, are not required reading to go about day-to-day life in the United States. However, when a presidential candidate asks this question on national television, they cannot held to that same standard. Foreign policy is one of the most important issues a President is asked to deal with, so when Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, asked this question on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” he further demonstrated that this is not an election to be taken lightly.
Aleppo is arguably the most important city in the Syrian conflict. It has been the epicenter of the refugee crisis and the frontline of the battle between the government forces of President Al-Asaad and the rebel army (one of the many factions anyway). Now granted there are thousands of cities in the world, and no one person should be expected to be able to name every one of them, but even when Mike Barnicle, one of the “Morning Joe” panelists, clarified what Aleppo was, Johnson’s answer on what he would do about the city left much to be desired. Johnson started off his answer by declaring that Syria is “a mess.” It is safe to say he is right about that, but as he went on to summarize his views his reply demonstrated a startling lack of understanding about the Syrian conflict and the Middle East in general.
Johnson is a Libertarian and has adopted the classic libertarian isolationist view. He does not believe in involving the United States in wars in the Middle East and is adamantly opposed to “regime change” measures. In Syria, Johnson believes that we should avoid military intervention at all costs and that the way forward is to “join hands with Russia diplomatically.” His plan is vague in its goals and naïve for any presidential candidate to put forward. For starters, Russia has been backing the United States’ opposition in Syria. Russia supports the Syrian government and president Al-Asaad while the United States has committed to funding and backing the “moderate” rebels who are currently at war with both ISIS and Asaad. To move forward with Russia would mean playing peace broker between Asaad and the rebels groups when the United States could never be seen as a neutral party. All peace negotiations up to this point have been nothing short of a spectacular failure, and Johnson’s plan to combat ISIS balances on the ability to end a seemingly endless civil war in a country fractured into too many groups to list.
The bright side for the Libertarians is that, by comparison, Donald Trump’s plan for Syria makes Johnson look like the most knowledgable man in the world. Trump is also not interested in regime change and has stated the United States has “bigger problems” than worrying about Asaad. Trump would rather the United States wash its hands of the situation between Asaad and the rebels and allow Russia to take the forefront. Not involving the United States in Syria may have been a feasible plan in 2011, but this is no longer something the United States could risk doing. Vladimir Putin is not an ally to the United States and does not have the best interest of the region, or the world, in mind. His only interest in backing Asaad lies in maintaining Russia’s military stronghold in Syria which provides key access to the Mediterranean. Russia’s backing of a friendly dictator, in Asaad, will not lead to peace talks, only violent suppression of the rebellion (which has not worked going on five years now) and a larger humanitarian crisis.
Trump, like Johnson, is a bit of an isolationist himself, stating he never would have gotten involved in Iraq, Libya, or fighting Asaad in the first place. However, Trump has distanced himself from Johnson, by stating that he is all for “bombing the hell” out of ISIS. How he plans to fight ISIS without engaging in the Syrian civil war is anyone’s guess, because as far as his plan to defeat the Islamic State is concerned, Trump has kept it top secret. He has refused to comment on his plan for fear of losing the “element of surprise.” Trump has repeatedly demonstrated he understands almost nothing of the Middle East or the nuance of foreign policy. His refusal to comment on his plan only leads educated people suspect he has no plan. There is no Trump Trojan Horse waiting on the border of Syria, there is only a boisterous man with nothing constructive to offer the region.
When contrasted with the other two candidates in the race the only sensible voice is that of Hillary Clinton. Clinton has accomplished what neither Trump nor Johnson have been able to do, which is put out a detailed plan on what to do in Syria. Clinton would break from the Obama administrations path and create a no-fly zone over Syria. This would put us in direct conflict with Russia, which could be problematic in the long run, but will also stop the slaughter of civilians by Assad and Russian airstrikes. She will look to improve on the refuge crisis by creating safe havens within Syria to stop migration and promote stability in the region. She aims to provide more support for rebel forces and look to remove Assad from power through diplomacy.
Clinton is cited as being “hawkish” by many media outlets and she lives up to the moniker by appearing more willing to engage enemies militarily than Obama or either of her two opponents in the race. Opposition of Clinton point to mistakes made in her foreign policy decisions in the past, whether you look at her vote as a Jr. Senator in favor of the Iraq war or pushing for military intervention and regime change in Libya, but Clinton at least understands the problems facing the Middle East. She has foreign policy experience that dwarfs that of Johnson and Trump combined because they in fact have none (no Trump’s golf trips abroad do not count). The fact that Trump and Johnson fail to understand that you cannot isolate yourself from extremism is troubling. Ignoring the problems in the Middle East will only result in more problems for the United States not less.
Clinton, while perhaps too eager to fight more wars, is the only competent person in the discussion. It is like the rest of the class showed up and did not bother to read the book. In one of the most important issues of our time, two of the three major candidates are entirely unprepared to even talk logically on the subject, and that should alarm anyone paying attention.
