The Shallow Hawkishness of Tom Cotton

The senator does not engage in good faith with the other side in foreign policy debates, so how could he possibly make the debate more substantive?

Walter Russell Mead writes a puff-piece review of Tom Cotton’s book:

Mr. Cotton’s book is, of course, a partisan document. Democrats have their flaws, but Republicans don’t always approach foreign policy with the appropriate mix of Bismarckian drive and Metternichian finesse. Still, having senior politicians lay their convictions before the public is good for the country. One hopes more of them will take the time to share their foreign-policy views. These are grave times; we need a more substantive debate than tweets and cable-news sound bites can provide.

A more substantive debate would be welcome, but if Mead’s summary is any indication of what Cotton has to say in it then this book doesn’t contribute to it in the slightest. That shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with Cotton’s record, which is marked by extreme hardline views and a tendency to demagogue and vilify anyone that prefers even a slightly less militaristic foreign policy. The senator does not engage in good faith with the other side in foreign policy debates, so how could he possibly make the debate more substantive? We are already quite familiar with Cotton’s convictions, so he could have saved us the trouble of being subjected to them at length.