The United States, as the world’s only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

Right away, the essay starts out badly. Comparing the United States to a successful high school student who might have a tendency to lord it over the dullards is simplistic, to say the least. There is, of course, no mention of specific examples in which the United States has sought “to dominate others.” Politics ain’t beanbag and international relations is even less beanbagesque than is the practice of domestic politics. As a superpower, the United States holds tremendous sway in diplomatic, military and financial circles and as a nation-state acting in conjunction with the expectations and predictions of realist theory, the United States will indeed seek to push for its preferred policies overseas–whether that occurs in bilateral or multilateral settings. As power is a zero sum game, it stands to reason that when the United States prevails in pushing for one particular position and another country–or a group of countries–fails in the advocacy of a competing position, there may be some hard feelings. But from the outset, Huckabee fails to give voice to the fact that America’s allies feel an attachment to the United States and a need to keep up a friendship with the U.S. because of mutual interests in a whole host of areas. Moreover, Huckabee fails to take note of the fact that in Germany and France, anti-American governments have given way to significantly pro-American ones and that in Britain, Gordon Brown–whatever his other faults–has sought to keep the special relationship between Britain and the United States intact, going so far as to authorize his Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, to smack down the insufferable Mark Malloch-Brown when the latter pompously declared earlier this year that Britain and America were no longer “joined at the hip.”

Incidentally, is Huckabee unaware of the degree to which America is “generous in helping others”? Apparently so. His first paragraph implicitly suggests a false dichotomy; America has “attempt[ed] to dominate others” instead of being “generous in helping others.” Er . . . no. Huckabee would have reassured at least a few people if he gave a nod to American efforts to lend support to international aid programs. Instead, he made it clear that he is unaware of the scope of American aid overseas.

American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists. At the same time, my administration will never surrender any of our sovereignty, which is why I was the first presidential candidate to oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would endanger both our national security and our economic interests.

This paragraph is demagoguery in action, pure and simple. Talk about the Administration’s “arrogant bunker mentality” is taken straight out of Democratic talking points and has about as much accuracy as do laser blasts from the guns of Imperial stormtroopers in the Star Wars saga. It is not an argument. It is, rather, a shibboleth, as is the discussion of pitting us against the terrorists instead of against the world. Would that the great Jeane Kirkpatrick were alive to comment on Huckabee’s poorly aimed rhetoric, it might cause her to be reminded of a certain speech she gave about a group of people who may well have given Huckabee the inspiration he drew on in choosing his words. I realize that Presidential candidates need to write catchy lines to attract the attention of the public, but catchy lines need to have a semblance of truth about them. It is nice to see that Huckabee opposes the Law of the Sea Treaty. So do I. The difference between me and Huckabee is that I spelled out my opposition and the reasons for it. In his essay, Huckabee never does.

A more successful U.S. foreign policy needs to better explain Islamic jihadism to the American people. Given how Americans have thrived on diversity — religious, ethnic, racial — it takes an enormous leap of imagination to understand what Islamic terrorists are about, that they really do want to kill every last one of us and destroy civilization as we know it. If they are willing to kill their own children by letting them detonate suicide bombs, then they will also be willing to kill our children for their misguided cause. The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is “know your enemy,” and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick. Very few Americans are familiar with the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical executed in 1966, or the Muslim Brotherhood, whose call to active jihad influenced Osama bin Laden and the rise of al Qaeda. Qutb raged against the decadence and sin he saw around him and sought to restore the “pure” Islam of the seventh century through a theocratic caliphate without national borders. He saw nothing decadent or sinful in murdering in order to achieve that end. America’s culture of life stands in stark contrast to the jihadists’ culture of death.

I am pretty well prepared to predict that in the event that Mike Huckabee wins the Presidency (stop laughing), the White House Press Office in a Huckabee Administration will not devote oodles and oodles of time to discussing the writings of Sayyed Qutb. And indeed, if there is a problem in America with the understanding of the ideology behind radical Islamism, that problem lies with those who refuse to believe–despite the mounting evidence–that radical Islamism and its ideology are a clear and present danger to American interests and the interests of America’s allies around the world. The fault for this lack of understanding does not lie with the Administration, which sought to move Heaven and Earth as early as September 20, 2001 to awaken the public to the danger:

Americans have many questions tonight.

Permalink