fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Huntsman and Libya (II)

As America’s just-returned ambassador to China, Huntsman also brings foreign policy credentials to a Republican field lacking in them. But here he has raised questions of consistency. On the stump, he speaks movingly of visiting Chinese “freedom fighters” who were beaten and imprisoned for defending their rights. At the same time, he opposes the American […]

As America’s just-returned ambassador to China, Huntsman also brings foreign policy credentials to a Republican field lacking in them. But here he has raised questions of consistency. On the stump, he speaks movingly of visiting Chinese “freedom fighters” who were beaten and imprisoned for defending their rights. At the same time, he opposes the American operation in Libya, on the grounds that it is not “core to our national security interests.” As president, would Huntsman have allowed the leveling of Benghazi and the victory of Moammar Gaddafi? ~Michael Gerson

According to what Huntsman has said about it, yes. He would have “allowed” Gaddafi to win (i.e., he would not have intervened in a conflict in which America had nothing at stake), whether or not that involved the “leveling of Benghazi.” The counterfactual fate of Benghazi always seems to get worse with each new bit of interventionist speculation. If that is disqualifying for a Republican candidate in Gerson’s mind, he has no intention of winning! It’s fun to pretend that our policy preferences have something to do with a candidate’s electability, isn’t it?

Of course, there isn’t any obvious inconsistency here on Huntsman’s part. It’s not as if Huntsman is proposing that the U.S. lend military support to Chinese “freedom fighters.” Perhaps he sympathizes with the Libyan rebels, but doesn’t believe it is the responsibility of the U.S. to win their fight for them. Actually, we don’t need to speculate on this. Huntsman has explained it pretty clearly:

He said that he did not believe the humanitarian threat was significant enough in Libya to warrant intervention by the United States.

“We could be responding to corners of the world constantly if that were the motivating criteria,” Mr. Huntsman said. “I think we have to be very careful about where we choose to spend our money and what we define as being important to our national security interest.”

Huntsman seems to think that the U.S. should exercise more caution and restraint in where it chooses to intervene militarily. One can still sympathize with and even speak out in support of dissidents while believing this. There’s no inconsistency here at all. As usual, Gerson doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Of course, it is this implied notion that sympathy for dissidents ought to translate into support for attacking other countries that can cause people to want to reject both at the same time.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here