Interested in how people would vote, since there are certain superficial similarities between Webb and Chafee: mostly notably both of them having been involved in the Republican Party previously.
Webb all the way of course.
Easily Chafee. Much less likely to get us into more pointless wars.
Than Webb? There are many reasons to oppose Webb compared to Chaffee, but that’s not a very good one. Chaffee voted against the Iraq war. He changed his party affiliation because he felt the party had left him, not specifically because of the Iraq war. He then took his ball and went home. Webb was so angry about the war he changed his affiliation and made it THE issue in his campaign.
I’m not sure how you could not see Webb as the LEAST likely candidate to get us into foreign wars out of all the Democratic contenders.
Because of Webb’s recent rhetoric on Iran and the Middle East.
So sue Jim Webb for being consistently against grand strategies for reforming the Middle East that are incredibly risky and in the short term get more people killed. But your explanation makes sense for your own views on the subject.
I’m against such strategies as well, but Webb’s rhetoric lately has been hawkish and interventionist.
Sounds more like Jacksonian “Don’t screw with us” rhetoric to me. Intervening where there is no US interest is strictly a Clinton/Obama phenemenon.
This is a laughable assertion. We had no US interest in Iraq, and Obama has spent much of his effort on getting us out of and preventing such interventions (though not as much as I’d like).
Except that’s not Jim Webb’s doctrine. He’s never supported that kind of thing. While Clinton and Obama were going to war in Libya, Webb was opposed.
Then why is much of his current rhetorichawkish?
The article describes it as hawkish but I’m not seeing the hawkish.
Advocating ending negotiations with Iran is hawkish.
In a vacuum, MAYBE. But not coming from the guy who opposed the Iraq war(with a lot more passion than Chaffee ever worked up, which could charitably be described as “polite disagreement”), and opposed the Libya war. You think that guy would bomb Iran just because negotiations were broken off?
Webb’s policy would be the same as Obama’s stated policy: Iran will not get a bomb. The obvious difference is that Webb means what he says, whereas Obama found a loophole: no bomb while he’s in office.
Plus there’s the reality that since there is a deal now, a President Webb would certainly give it a chance to work. I have no doubt that Clinton will do the same, although I imagine her response to cheating will be somewhat… violent.
I don’t know, but opposing negotiations is a lot more hawkish that supporting them. Bush refused to negotiate with Iran for years, and it made things much worse. If Bush had tried to negotiate this kind of deal, it probably would have been much better in terms of number of centrifuges and things like that because Iran was much less farther along. The longer we wait, the worse it will get.
That’s ridiculous and Bushesque. The US just doesn’t have the power to make certain that Iran doesn’t get a bomb. We just don’t. It’s a fact that makes many conservatives sad, but it’s a fact. If Iran really wants a bomb they will get one, no matter what we do. This agreement at the very least delays it for a decade, and hopefully much longer.