Republicans are embroiled in broad rehash of Sept. 11, 2001 and the national security policies their party adopted in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
Top Republicans say that re-litigating the Iraq war and fighting about the Patriot Act is fair game, and somewhat useful, as they go through the exercise of picking a presidential nominee. They also say it’s politically unhelpful to look backwards, rather than focusing attention on future challenges and foreign policy missteps by President Obama and Hillary Clinton, his first secretary of state and the Democrats’ presumptive 2016 nominee.
“Where’s the conversation,” asked Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., “on Libya? Because that’s squarely at the feet of this administration — and Hillary. That conversation doesn’t come up. Would you, or would you not have, taken out [Libyan dictator Muammar] Gaddafi, given the circumstances we see today?”
Perhaps the Republican White House hopefuls were bound to face questions about the past.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is a major Republican presidential contender, and his brother, then-President George W. Bush, formulated the U.S. counter-terrorism response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and spearheaded the unpopular Iraq war on what turned out to be faulty intelligence. Iraq is again in shambles, this time threatened by the rise of the Islamic State, which also has stirred fears of more terrorist attacks by Jihadist radicals on American soil.
Iraq war veterans like Zinke, a retired Navy Seal, say that Obama and Clinton should have to answer for this, in addition to the quagmire that is Libya after the U.S. and allies toppled Gaddafi’s regime. That’s an advantage Republican strategists imagine their eventual nominee holds in a general election against Clinton that could hinge on foreign policy — if they’re not too busy trying to justify the actions of Obama’s predecessor.
Republicans contend that Obama lost Iraq after the George W. Bush-led military “surge,” at high cost to the U.S. in blood and treasure, stabilized and secured the country. Obama’s determination to honor his campaign promise and pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq regardless of the consequences left a power vacuum that paved the way for the Islamic State, which this week captured Ramadi, a major city just 70 miles from Baghdad.
“People should ask President Obama: Was it a mistake to pull all the troops out in 2011 knowing what you know now?” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican and Air Force veteran who served in Iraq. “What really depresses [Iraq war veterans,] and it does, is seeing it fall a part like it is today.”
Republican primary voters — and voters generally — are open to the GOP’s hawkish foreign policy in the wake of a renewed terrorist threat, Russian aggression and a belligerent China. Some Republican strategists are so confident of this that they view any discussion of national security as beneficial to the party, even one that involves asking whether the Iraq war was worth fighting knowing what is known now — that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
Republicans are divided on some aspects of counter-terrorism strategy, with an intraparty debate on full display this week over reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
On Monday, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a likely GOP presidential candidate, used his personal experiences from that day of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and service as a U.S. attorney immediately afterward, to make a robust case for Congress to reauthorize the domestic surveillance program as-is. In a speech this week in New Hampshire, Christie said the Patriot Act, enacted by George W. Bush after 9/11, “could prevent the next attack from taking place in our country, killing our fellow citizens.”
Sen. Rand Paul, another Republican presidential contender, said the law is unconstitutional and unnecessary. The libertarian-leaning Kentuckian has vowed to do everything he can to kill reauthorization legislation that allows bulk collection of Americans’ phone records by the government, although viewing the information requires a warrant.
“We will do everything possible — including filibustering the Patriot Act to stop them,” Paul said during a campaign appearance in Philadelphia, within hours of Christie’s counter argument. “They have the votes inside the Beltway. But we have the votes outside the Beltway, and we’ll have that fight.”
Republicans on Capitol Hill are acting out their own version of the Christie-Paul feud. House Republicans have passed a reformed version of the Patriot Act, dubbed the USA Freedom Act, that would stop the government’s bulk collection of phone records. Most Senate Republicans, though not all, favor a clean extension. On Tuesday, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, tried to bring the House bill up for a vote; he was blocked by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.
Dave Carney, a GOP strategist based in New Hampshire, said GOP primary voters are likely to side with Paul in this debate, though Republicans in the Christie camp are unlikely to be penalized. Carney said primary voters are “somewhat bipolar” on the issue.
“They want to be safe and they don’t want the federal government listening to their phone calls,” he said. “They want the government listening to the terrorists’ phone calls.”
Disclosure: The author’s wife works as an adviser to Scott Walker.
