At the Republican National Convention, we heard an argument that will actually resurface this fall: former Vice President Joe Biden’s trial of national security issues is meant to be Array Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama expressed in this way in their memoirs: “I think he has been on almost every major foreign policy and national security factor for more than four decades. “
Gates’ overwhelming comment is unfair, if not cruel. After all, Biden subsidized arms control agreements to help corner Russia’s nuclear weapons after the Cold War, primary industry agreements that helped drive sustained global economic growth for decades, defense budgets and forged intelligence, and climate replacement agreements that, while far from adequate , have been a useful first step in addressing this wonderful challenge of our time. But put the questions aside for now. People like Gates pay special attention to Iraq, as Senator Biden voted against authorizing Operation Desert Storm in 1991 (which was successful) and in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (which was not) Array
Having participated in the iraq war debate and watched Biden’s role for 30 years, I think it’s much bigger than critics like Gates or political enemies like Senator Tom Cotton, Republican for Arkansas, allow. Iraq has a way of making almost any look bad if they stay in verbal exchange long enough. But Biden has also made positive contributions to the policy-making procedure that must be taken into account in any net assessment of its history.
Start with this 1991 vote: yes, Biden voted against the authorization of war, which was nevertheless approved in Senate 52-47, and yes, Bush deserves wonderful credits for his vision and courage to oppose Iraq’s aggression opposed to Kuwait (which he may have simply done). Although the Senate vote would have been the other way around), while some Democrats supported the resolution, many others, adding party luminaries such as Sam Nunn, John Glenn and Lloyd Bentsen, joined Biden in opposition. Bob Woodward later reported that General Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint General Staff, also incredibly suspicious.
So Biden had smart company. Kuwait is not the best friend of the US treaties; The United States had broader and more formal security interests and obligations in Europe and East Asia; and with the Cold War just finished, the country had to focus more on itself. While these arguments do not seem persuasive in retrospect, this does not mean that they were unrrasonable.
But the real heart of the challenge is the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the 2006-2007 debate about troop entry. Here, Biden’s record is more than was heard.
Yes, Biden voted to authorize the invasion, along with the top senators; The solution was approved by Senate 77-23, but as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden held a series of hearings in the summer of 2002 that remain the ultimate productive public discussion about the most demanding situations that an army crusade would likely face. under pressure, how complex any invasion and stabilization effort in Iraq would be. The fact that Bush’s leadership chose to forget the Senate’s recommendation and prepare for war on the basis that The overthrow of Saddam would be a “game of chance,” as defense policy analyst Kenneth Adelman unfortunately predicted, is not Biden’s fault.
COVID and Middle East: Daesh COVID distraction to rearm and regroup
Indeed, at the time, Biden stated that “in many ways, the ultimate critical factor is our responsibilities, if any, for the day after Saddam’s demolition, if he is repressed through the use of the U. S. military. This is a theoretical exercise. In Afghanistan, the war has been exceptionally well fought, in my opinion, but the commitment to follow-up to Afghanistan’s security and reconstruction, in my opinion, has failed.
“It would be a tragedy if we got rid of a tyrant in Iraq, to leave chaos in his wake. Iraqis suffered for a long time want to know that replacing the regime will gain advantages for them. Iraq’s neighbors too. So do we. We want to have a better perception of what this means, it would take to protect Iraq and rebuild it economically and politically.
By 2006, Saddam Hussein had long gone and, tragically, any appearance of stability in Iraq as well. At that time, based on a concept first developed through Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden proposed dividing Iraq. in the north, Sunnis in the west and Shiites in the center and east would each have their own autonomous region.
My 2007 studies with Professor Edward Joseph of Johns Hopkins warned that the proposal would have been difficult to implement. Fortunately, the remarkable “push” of the troops grew and, nevertheless, succeeded. The partition plan was not mandatory and Biden stopped pushing it. But in proposing such an idea, rather than defending reckless withdrawal like others were beginning to favor at the time, Biden played the valid role of an unwavering opposition in American politics, seeking to shake up the political procedure and save anything from disaster. . Iraq had become.
Later, as vice president, Biden consulted with Iraqi leaders from diverse backgrounds and attempted to involve the increasingly sectarian tactics of Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who sought to exclude many Sunni leaders from Iraqi politics and stack the government and army. their own lackeys. The fact that Biden eventually failed was tragic, as it led to Daesh’s emergence in Iraq in 2014 and other massive setbacks. In retrospect, the United States deserves to have supported moderate Ayad Allawi and his political party more strongly. But with President Barack Obama deciding that our forces would soon leave Iraq, Biden’s influence was limited.
Joe Biden: Trump is the worst leader imaginable to deal with the coronavirus epidemic
Speaking of ISIS, despite past mistakes, the Obama-Biden team recovered intelligently in 2014, forcing Maliki to leave force as a precondition for the U. S. military on an Iraq-led crusade opposed to the caliphate, because Obama and Biden learned that any effort had to be led through Iraq, the effort took time , since its main element had to be the reconstruction of the Iraqi army.
The crusade began to be promising when Obama and Biden left office, which eventually led to the defeat of ISIS and the restoration of control of the Iraqi government across the country at the start of Trump’s presidency. Today, few protect the 2003 invasion, and the country still has a long way to go, Iraq shows glimmers of hope.
Pointing to Biden on a curve, I would say it has been slightly higher than the average of the most sensitive American leaders over the years.
Michael O’Hanlon, a member of the USA TODAY Taxpayer Board, is a senior investigator at the Brookings Institution and “Beyond NATO: A New Security Architecture for Eastern Europe. “Follow him on Twitter: @MichaelEOHanlon