Christie keeps repeating one of the most ignorant foreign policy statements of the entire campaign:

Christie has been using this claim for weeks, and being mocked by Paul at the last debate for his eagerness to get into a shooting war with Russia hasn’t discouraged him. In the days after the debate, Christie responded to Paul’s criticism by insisting that “we’re already in WWIII.” That is how he chooses to describe a fight against maybe thirty thousand jihadists in a handful of countries that have little or no ability to strike directly at the U.S. or its allies. Most states around the world are not taking part in this so-called “world war,” and the “world war” Christie refers to doesn’t affect the vast majority of nations around the world.

The fight against jihadist groups is obviously nothing like a world war in terms of scale or danger, and it belittles both the horror and the significance of the world wars of the 20th century to liken it to them. Candidates that use such wildly misleading and confused language about the current fight confirm that they don’t understand the first thing about it. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly that Christie has no business anywhere near the presidency than his ridiculous “WWIII” alarmism.

I understand that hawks engage in fear-mongering to make their dangerous policies seem more acceptable, but it still strikes me as odd that the people that claim to prize “toughness” and “resolve” so much like to appear as the most panic-stricken, frightened people in the debate. It is fitting that the candidate who relies most heavily on cultivating an image of being a “tough” guy is the one most inclined to indulge in pathetic and overwrought threat inflation.

Advertisement