The Republican Hawkish Civil War and Our Warped Foreign Policy Debates
The fight between these competing groups of hawks is interesting only in that it shows the extremely narrow limits in which most of our foreign policy debates take place.
Rebecca Heinrichs and Matt Kroenig rail against so-called “Asia First” Republicans and call for more militarism everywhere:
The necessary assumption undergirding this “Asia First” foreign-policy position is that Washington can no longer do it all, that America is in decline. But like past declinists and doomers, “Asia First” proponents are mistaken.
The fight between these competing groups of hawks is interesting only in that it shows the extremely narrow limits in which most of our foreign policy debates take place. Both the “Asia Firsters” and their critics support a very aggressive U.S. foreign policy, both favor opening the spigot for military spending as much as possible, and both buy fully into the false idea that the U.S. is indispensable for global security. They disagree about very little, but they have been attacking each other with increasing viciousness over the last year and a half. It’s tempting to sit back and enjoy the fratricidal battles, but then we have to remember that no matter which camp wins the struggle the U.S. will end up losing.
The “Asia First” hawks don’t have good arguments or proposals, but they have the advantage that they are at least somewhat in touch with the reality of U.S. overstretch. Their answers are all wrong, but they can recognize that U.S. resources aren’t infinite and that strategy requires setting priorities. That’s more than can be said for their hawkish detractors.