Stephens thinks Trump is bad for Israel. I would agree, but to me, the question is beside the point; I only care if Trump is bad for America.
That said, the Stephens column contains several arguments that are near and dear to the heart of the neocon blob. I will deconstruct them:
- TRUMP’S WHIMSICAL DECISIONMAKING PROCESS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR US AND OUR ALLIES: Absolutely true, but Trump said repeatedly during the campaign that he liked being unpredictable–hey, it worked for him in the real estate business! That’s what America, in its infinite wisdom, elected. It beats Clinton and her e-mails, right?
- KEEPING TROOPS IN SYRIA IS STILL NECESSARY TO DEFEAT ISIS: I don’t have access to enough information to judge the truth of that, but it seems to me that if the “caliphate” doesn’t hold any territory anymore, the job of keeping IS down requires intelligence and police work more than American ground troops.
- WE NEED TO STAY IN SYRIA TO KEEP FAITH WITTH THE KURDS AND MAINTAIN CREDIBILITY WITH CURRENT AND FUTURE ALLIES: Selling out the Kurds is troubling, but what about the Turks? They’re NATO allies, after all, and we have treaty obligations to them. Is it really a good idea to keep troops in between the two parties? Can’t the job of separating them be done diplomatically? In any event, we have already effectively sold out the Iraqi Kurds, and the Syrian Kurds undoubtedly assumed this would happen sooner or later.
- WE NEED TO STAY IN SYRIA TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF RUSSIAN AND SYRIAN INFLUENCE: Stephens, like many others before him, forgets that the Russians and Iranians were Assad’s allies long before the civil war began. At worst, Syria is a lost opportunity to gain ground, not an additional loss of influence. In addition, is Syria really the right place to do battle with Russia and Iran? Do we have enough of an interest in the country to justify keeping troops there? Isn’t it better to put the burden on the Russians and Iranians to keep Syria quiet? Does the presence of 2,000 troops in Syria actually give us enough diplomatic leverage to force Assad out, or even to drive Iran and Hezbollah away? I just don’t think we can get our way without escalating dramatically, and that isn’t on the cards, particularly not after years of inaction.
- ISRAEL IS ONLY MARGINALLY SAFER AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL BECAUSE “SANCTIONS ARE A TOOL OF STRATEGY, NOT A STRATEGY UNTO THEMSELVES.” In my opinion, Israel isn’t safer at all, and yes, sanctions are just a tool, not an end. Obama used them to get the Iran deal, which came about after long and difficult multilateral negotiations. The apparent objective of the Trump crowd is regime change, and sanctions won’t bring it about. That leaves war as an inevitable Plan B. Stephens either doesn’t understand that, or he’s lying to himself and his readers.
- WE NEED TO DEFEND THE LIBERAL INTERNATIONAL ORDER AGAINST ITS TOTALITARIAN ENEMIES BY FORCE, WHERE NECESSARY. The Cold War origins of neoconservatism become clear when you hear statements like this, because Iran and Russia, while repressive, are not totalitarian states. Yes, I would certainly agree that we need to stop openly embracing dictators and disparaging human rights, but, given our decline in the world relative to the Chinese, we need to work with allies to solve problems, use diplomacy, and pick our spots to use force very carefully. Neocons essentially think the military is the first option, not the last. They have already forgotten the lesson of Iraq.