fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Walker and the War on ISIS (II)

Walker's "rule nothing out" position is misguided and unwisely leaves the door open to unnecessary escalation.

Scott Walker is a big fan of not ruling things out:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he wouldn’t rule out a full-blown re-invasion of Iraq if he were to become the next commander-in-chief.

In fairness to Walker, he didn’t quite say what the report claims. The transcript shows that he wasn’t going to answer Karl’s question about a “re-invasion” and kept trying to avoid making any specific commitments:

KARL: Would you rule out a full-blown U.S. re-invasion of Iraq and Syria?

WALKER: I don’t think we should ever send a message to our foes as to how far we’re willing to go.

KARL: So you wouldn’t rule out a full blown re-invasion…

WALKER: I would not rule out boots on the ground.

KARL: No, but I’m asking about a full blown re-invasion of Iraq if that’s what it takes…

WALKER: If the national interest of this country are at stake, here at risk in this country or abroad, that’s to me the standard of what we do for military engagement.

Walker is very taken with the idea that no option should ever be ruled out. This is how he answered a similar question about sending ground forces to fight ISIS a few months ago, which makes it seem as if he favors a more aggressive policy without actually endorsing one. This is supposed to convey some sort of savvy on his part, but it just draws attention to his unwillingness to articulate his own policy views.

The closest that Walker gets to explaining what his preferred policy would be is when he asserts that “we have a capacity to reclaim Iraq with the Iraqi forces that are there as long as we unleash the power that is already there of the American armed forces,” which is still so vague as to be almost meaningless. What power does he think is available to be “unleashed” that is not being used, and why would “unleashing” this power make the Iraqi army more effective than it has been?

Walker’s “rule nothing out” position is a common one among hawks. It is misguided and unwisely leaves the door open to unnecessary escalation. There are clearly options in the war on ISIS that would have little or no public support, and in the absence of sustained public support escalating a foreign war would be extremely foolish. So it is absurd to pretend that some options haven’t already been ruled out for all intents and purposes because of the lack of political support for them. There are some more aggressive measures that would clearly be far too costly to the U.S., so we all understand that those have also been effectively ruled out already. There is no virtue in refusing to rule out obviously dangerous and impractical options. In most cases, ruling out those options doesn’t tell an opponent anything he hasn’t already guessed, and in this case it could force regional governments to take more responsibility for their region’s security when it becomes clear that the U.S. isn’t going to try to bail them out.

Advertisement

Comments

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