Donald Trump has moved to replace H. R. McMaster with John Bolton, and the verdict is in. Americans should be “terrified.” Or perhaps “horrified.” The New York Times editorial board declares, in no uncertain terms, “Yes, John Bolton really is that dangerous.”
What’s going on? Has Donald Trump selected a crazed warmonger to be his national-security adviser? Is Bolton going to lead us down the path to foolish war? Far from it.
Bolton is not — as some in the media would have you believe — a mere flame-throwing Fox News “talking head.” He’s a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He’s on the board of trustees of the National Review Institute. He’s a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He’s a conservative hawk, yes, but he’s squarely in the mainstream of conservative foreign-policy thought.
He’s not extreme. The reaction against him, however, is. Moreover, the reaction betrays a sad reality: The foreign-policy Left still hasn’t learned the lessons of the recent past.
To put it simply, all too many people view the challenge of North Korea and Iran something like this: There is a clearly safer path, including engagement, talks, and continued fidelity to the Iran deal; and there is a clearly more dangerous path — saber-rattling, increased sanctions, public advocacy for regime change. All right-thinking people should seek more engagement with North Korea. All right-thinking people should support the Iran deal.
The “clearly safer” argument always has a short-term advantage. When choosing between less risk of war and greater risk of war, there is a proper default preference for less risk and a presumption in favor of making immediate moves toward peace. When dealing with jihadist regimes like Iran’s or evil regimes like North Korea’s, however, the problem is that every single path is perilous.
Miscalculate in favor of war, and you risk an unnecessary bloodbath — one that America would win, but at immense cost in blood and treasure. Miscalculate in favor of peace, and you risk — God forbid — American cities in flames, a genocidal nuclear exchange in the Middle East, or (perhaps most likely) future military confrontations with aggressive and hostile foreign powers that we can’t truly win because of their own nuclear shield. Remember the words of Krishnaswamy Sundarji, former chief of staff of the Indian army: “One principal lesson of the Gulf War is that, if a state intends to fight the United States, it should avoid doing so until and unless it possesses nuclear weapons.”
World history is littered with both kinds of mistakes, and our recent histories with both Iran and North Korea indicate that bipartisan policies of engagement, negotiation, and forbearance have not, in fact, moderated either regime. Iran continues to export jihad, work to kill Americans, and ally with our Russian rival to engineer a bloodbath in Syria — even as the Iran “deal” fails to deliver on Obama’s dream of somehow bringing Iran into the community of nations. North Korea is well on its way to developing a nuclear first-strike capability that threatens the mainland United States.
Much of the American intelligentsia lives in a world where the “hawks” — those who supported the Iraq War — are discredited, while the “doves” — those who presided over American foreign policy while Syria burned, ISIS rose, and North Korea tested its nuclear weapons — are not. Yet didn’t Barack Obama himself have to turn hawkish by the end of his second term? Didn’t he reinsert American ground troops in Iraq and put boots on the ground in Syria? Didn’t he keep American troops in Afghanistan during every single day of his presidency and expand the American military footprint in Africa? It turns out that American inaction helped destabilize the Middle East and dramatically elevated the jihadist threat.
Moreover, we should not exaggerate John Bolton’s aggression. To be a hawk isn’t to see war as a first resort. It’s to see war as a realistic option — an option that ideally makes diplomatic overtures more urgent and effective. As the most powerful nation on the face of the earth, we should not conduct our diplomacy as if we fear war more than our potential foes do.
The left criticized McCain for stating we would stay in Iraq a hundred years to defeat terrorism. Then they wonder (or maybe they don’t even care) why aggressors challenge US military might and create breaches of the peace around the world. If N. Korea is coming to discussions with a mind towards progress towards peace it is because they wonder if Trump is going to go to war with them or not. Iran never had any such delusions about Obama, knowing from day one they could dictate what they wanted and how they wanted it and get every bit of it from him and Kerry… which they did.
We proved we were willing to go to war to defend our national security. It shouldn’t be necessary to validate that point again, but after the 8 years of cowardice and foreign policy stupidity from Obama, it WILL be necessary at some point. When it happens, don’t blame someone like Trump who did what leaders do and dealt with the situation, blame idiots like Obama who created the problem passed them on down the road.
Not a fan of Bolton he has conservative credentials but globalistic aligning views on regime changes that have us mired in the middle east til dooms day. I preferred Stormin Normans kick ass hard and GTFO with a warning it could be worse next time ya weenie, no nation building no refugees, leave a heartless despot in charge to make the inbred sand fleas get along, little George was wrong about destabilizing Iraq, and Obama came with his policy of destabilizing the rest of the middle east.
Just an old swamp creature, Bolton has been an advocate for regime change in Iran and North Korea and has repeatedly called for the termination of the Iran deal (no one is 100% wrong)He was a supporter of the Iraq War and continues to support his decision He has continuously supported military action and regime change in Syria, Libya, and Iran.
Flynn was a better man but the deepstate just couldnt let a good man in the job.