Newt Turns To Foreign Policy

Newt Gingrich, a man who has habitually given himself very high marks in the native intelligence department, is in the process of renewing, redefining, relaunching or repairing his quest for the presidency.  While it is tempting to dismiss him as Georgia's answer to Donald Trump--far more interested in promoting his brand than actually putting his hind end in the Oval, that seductive idea must be resisted.  The man takes himself far too seriously for that sort of thing.

It is in this context--the concept of Newt as serious contender--that the former House Speaker's address to the Republican Jewish Coalition must be considered.  Of course, the speech was carefully tailored to the audience, its concerns, fears, anxieties, hopes, all of which focus quite unsurprisingly on Israel.  Thus the impression given by the Gingrich remarks to the effect that the Israeli tail would wave the American dog with even greater vigor than usual in a Gingrich administration must be discounted.

Mr Gingrich must be intellectually honest enough to understand that the fate of the state of Israel is not the be all and end all of US foreign affairs.  This is not to imply that Israel and its relations with the Arab and Muslim states is not a trivial consideration in the calculus of American interests, but it does mean that Israel, even in a Gingrich presidency, would not be the only or even the major consideration guiding our playing of the game of nations.

In his remarks Gingrich offered nine specific points which would mark his mode of operation in global politics.  Some are inconsequential on the macro level while important to some in Israel and most of the Israel Lobby here in the US.  (The executive order transferring our embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv on the first day of the Gingrich administration stands out in this area.)  Other bullets have genuine salience.

In this area is Gingrich's rejection of the Obama Formulation regarding the borders of Israel.  Given that Newt did not quote the Formulation with total accuracy, his main criticism holds true.  The 1967 borders of Israel do not meet the requirement set forth in Resolution 242 to the effect that the borders must be both secure and defensible.  Even with land swaps to accommodate the "settlements" and giving due regard to the changes in military technology which have occurred over the past forty years, the borders put in place at the time of the armistice ending the wars of independence do not meet the "secure and defensible" test.  At the least the Israelis must have a military presence in the Jordan valley to provide some early if not particularly distant warning of impending attack by land.  In addition, the government of Israel would need some means of assuring the Palestinian territory remained demilitarized and free of the crude but deadly missiles so beloved by Hamas and similar terror oriented Islamic groups.

Also salient and relevant to reality was Gingrich's renunciation of any "right of return" on the part of Palestinians displaced by either the wars of independence or the Six Day War of 1967.  While some of the displacement was forced (particularly during the wars of independence) by Israeli forces, most of the refugees were cozened by Arab governments into leaving their homes and lands with the expectation of returning behind the ever-victorious Arab armies.  That the expectations were thwarted by Israeli military prowess in no way provides some right of return.  Gingrich properly notes that the allowing of unlimited return by the refugees or their descendants would constitute a form of demographic suicide.  He might have added that the alternative of financial compensation would be the same in economic terms.

On an issue which is of great importance to Israel which is also one of concern to civilized states generally, Gingrich stated that he would take more robust actions against Iran so as to prevent it realizing its nuclear objectives.  What might be done beyond that which has already been tried and failed, the Deep Thinker from Georgia did not say.  The idea of Iran and its eschatological leadership gaining nuclear weapons does not provide for easy repose.  But, absent the use of force there seems very little probability of preventing the regime from acquiring the bomb.  Admittedly, it would be politically suicidal for a potential candidate to commit his administration to preemptive war, but does Mr Gingrich really, really believe that all who hear or read his speech could conclude other than he anticipated using the "military option?"

The Gingrich Nine Point Plan shows the former congressman is not a big supporter of the UN.  He makes this clear with two of his bullets.

He proposes closing the UN refugee camps.  This is a good idea and long overdue as the camps, originally intended to be short term emergency shelters for those displaced during the wars of independence over sixty years ago, have transmogrified into permanent enclaves of the impoverished, the disaffected, the alienated, the dependent, the hopeless.  As such they have proved perfect recruiting grounds for assorted terror groups both secular and Islamist.

While he wants these camps shut down he provides no mechanism for their replacement.  Even if one grants all the negatives regarding the camps which he lists, it is not enough to merely shut them down.  Presumably the new Palestinian state and government would take the responsibility of integrating the former refugees and their descendants but this will require (unfortunately) some measure of foreign assistance.  To be credible as opposed to merely emotionally evocative, Newt should have outlined a process, a system at the least.

But the one time bomb thrower saved his larger critique of the UN for the subject of that body recognizing an independent Palestinian state.  In essence the Gingrich administration would stop paying UN dues should the folly by the Hudson play create-a-state.  He considers it likely that the UN will do something akin to creating a state called Palestine given the organization's well established record of beating up on Israel.

It is true that the UN generally and the UN Human Rights Council in particular loves kicking Israel around on a regular basis.  It is also true that the UN has delusions of adequacy with respect to acting as if it were some sort of governing body, but even in its worst moments there are sane diplomats in Turtle Bay with the result that the UN will not create a Palestine.  This will most likely be the case even absent the US veto in the Security Council.  (Hint: Think Russia and China and their apprehensions regarding the UN and its ambitions of overreach.)

Gingrich would have done his campaign and his audience a greater service had he taken a principled position on the UN itself.  The UN may have outlived whatever utility it might have had in bygone decades.  The time may be here for a new, tighter organization in which the genuine liberal democracies with a commitment to such features as open inquiry and expression, separation of church and state, independent judiciary, free enterprise, and the dignity of the individual constitute the membership.  If so and if he shares that view, why not say so?  Bashing the UN because it bashes Israel is fun but not useful.

Gingrich shows himself as Gingrich most pure and simple with point nine of his list.  He wants to totally transform the culture of the State Department.  His reasons are vague at best as are his accusations against the crew at Foggy Bottom.  His taking on the State Department with a full throated call for "new blood was redolent of the days when assorted Republicans considered the department to be filled with lily livered Red loving cookie pushers.

The reality is quite different from the Gingrich caricature.  As has been demonstrated by the contents of the infamous WikiLeaks data dump, We the People are being very well served by a foreign service of highly competent and quite dedicated nature.  As a historian specializing in 20th Century military, diplomatic, and intelligence history, the Geek has become convinced that our State Department has never been better.  It has faults--for example it is too bureaucratized--but these can be addressed without the draconian approach advocated by Gingrich.  Simply put, in this contention, Newt is off-the-wall and out-to-lunch.

When one does not support a war--don't blame the grunts.  And, Newt, when one does not like a foreign policy--don't blame the foreign service officers.  In both cases the blame (if any) rests with the politicians, with the president and his "team."  Get rid of them and you are rid of the obnoxious policy.

Presumably this is what Gingrich wants to do--get rid of Obama and his "team."  While it is doubtful that Gingrich is the man to do the ridding, he is to be given two thumbs up.  One is for making the out-of-right-field effort to answer the question of "who will rid us of this meddlesome president."  The other is for bringing foreign policy back to center stage even if only briefly and in a patently tendentious way.