But a foreshadowing: I do not agree with Mr. Drum that Senator Rubio gave that bad an answer to the question of what U.S. strategy against the Islamic State should be. The Islamic State also control Syrian territory, so Baghdad’s opposition is not a deal-breaker. Moreover, it might be worth trying to persuade the Iraqis to cooperate if a suitable Sunni force can be raised. It is hard to see which countries could put up the troops, but Bangladesh certainly has a long-standing tradition of hiring out their armed services. So does Pakistan. And it is not crazy to try to persuade Jordan and Saudi Arabia, even if I doubt that it would work.
I am not saying that I agree with Senator Rubio. To be honest, I think it would be impossible to persuade Sunni nations to put up the forces. And if it were, I would worry about Phase V operations: can a combination of Arab Sunni forces and Muslim peacekeepers from South Asia establish order? Would their governments be willing to bear to cost in blood of a prolonged operation, even if the United States paid the cost in treasure? I do not think that I would try to set up such an operation, were I somehow elected president.
But it is not crazy on its face. Even if Senator Rubio thinks the effort to raise such a force will fail, it is not unreasonable for him to suggest it.
I agree with Steve Benen that the Senator is trying too hard to distinguish himself from the President, but Mr. Benen is being completely disingenuous. He knows exactly why the Senator has to do that. The weird Iran flub is more disconcerting, but it does not strike me as dealbreaking or a sign that Senator Rubio is clueless. Rather, it strikes me as a simple gaffe, understandable in the heat of a CPAC conference, where Iran policy is a separating issue for the gathered faithful.
Messrs Benen and Drum strike me as bringing up small potatoes in a (gulp) slightly partisan way. Go ahead, talk me into why I should disrespect the good Senator from the great state of Florida regarding his Levantine policy. Because right now I don’t.
This is medium silly/crazy on its face, but it's the kind of sophistry that makes Rubio seem "serious" in comparison to his notional rivals.
Let's break it down, using your scorecard. While Pakistan and Bangladesh have participated in peace keeping, their battle records in Somalia are not persuasive towards the premise that their governments would be especially likely to loan them out for grueling urban warfare against a long-running insurgency in two failed states. Even a relatively limited operation, like retaking Mosul, would be out of the reach of most of those militaries.
Pulling back America's Sunni Arab partners, Jordan and KSA have negligible armies and strong intelligence services, while Egypt's army is a bit busy.
In addition to which, this sort of intervention is likely to enhance the spoilers in the various civil wars in Iraq and Syria. And we have a fairly local case study of the mixed results of sucking your neighbors into a civil war: Lebanon. So, asking someone else to fix a civil war that hasn't burned out yet is all downside noise and garbage.
This may not be the silliest thing Rubio has said, but it's a no risk way to claim you're butcher than Barack that has no special basis in fact or logic.
It's also marginally interesting as Rubio tends to be more incompetently hawkish than Romney, but in this case, he's claiming that the American hegemon can't or won't do.
Posted by: McDevite | February 28, 2015 at 09:09 PM