Airstrike Pushes National Security to Forefront of 2020 Race

The U.S. strike in Baghdad that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani thrust foreign policy to the center of the Democratic presidential race, drawing expressions of grave concern from the leading candidates and stoking a new debate in the party about the U.S. military presence in the Middle East.The party's presidential field reacted to the attack with a measure of unity, at least on the surface level, condemning Soleimani's role directing violence against Americans but criticizing what they called the Trump administration's penchant for reckless action and the threat of all-out war.But during a series of campaign events Friday, the top Democrats began to signal their differences on matters of national security, opening the way for what could become the party's most serious conversation of the race about war and peace. Former Vice President Joe Biden, whose long diplomatic resume and global stature have been seen as crucial assets to his campaign, seized the occasion to remind voters of his experience, pressing them to elect a president who could "command the world stage with no on-the-job training."Delivering stern remarks in Dubuque, Iowa, Biden said President Donald Trump was risking nuclear proliferation and "direct conflict with Iran." On Twitter, he described the president as "erratic, unstable and dangerously incompetent.""The threat to American lives and interests in the region and around the world are enormous," Biden said in Iowa.But elsewhere in the state, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called not just for the replacement of an impulsive president but for a wholesale overhaul of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Opening a town-hall-style meeting in Anamosa, Iowa, with a somber address, Sanders urged a total military pullback from the region and noted at length that he had forcefully opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, without explicitly mentioning that Biden had voted to authorize the war."We need to firmly commit to ending the U.S. military presence in the Middle East in an orderly manner, not through a tweet," Sanders said, reiterating his past calls for a pullout from Afghanistan and an end to cooperation with Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. "Instead of provoking more volatility in the region, the United States must use its power, its wealth and its influence to bring the regional powers to the table to resolve conflicts."And Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who in the past has urged a pullout of all U.S. combat troops from the Middle East, echoed that sentiment on Twitter, warning that the country was "on the brink of yet another war" and urging Americans to mobilize against military escalation. "No more Middle East Wars," she wrote.Both Sanders and Warren used the word "assassination" to describe the killing of Soleimani, a term that has significant legal and diplomatic implications. One of the prominent centrists in the race, Michael Bloomberg, rebuked Sanders for that description, calling it "outrageous." He described the felled general as a fair target, questioning instead whether Trump was prepared for the fallout.Whether military matters come to dominate the primary in the remaining month before the Iowa caucuses is likely to depend on events in Iraq and Iran -- and perhaps in neighboring countries -- and how severe and visible any ensuing clash with Iran turns out to be. Foreign affairs have so far played a strictly limited role in the Democratic race.There have been major debate-stage duels over health care, taxation, immigration, criminal justice and gun control but only glancing disagreements about the role of the United States abroad and the proper way to resolve U.S. military engagements in the Middle East and Central Asia.On Friday, much of the Democratic field proceeded with -- and recommended -- caution. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., called on the Trump administration to consult with Congress about a "strategy for preventing a wider conflict."And in North Conway, New Hampshire, Pete Buttigieg -- the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana -- called the Baghdad attack "an extremely provocative act," noting that Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush had both considered but opted against attempting to kill Soleimani."If we have learned nothing else from the Middle East in the last 20 years, it's that taking out a bad guy is not a good idea unless you are ready for what's coming next," said Buttigieg, who referred several times to his own service in the military.The possibility of a new and protracted conflict abroad could well reshape the general election even beyond the Democratic race. Trump ran for president on a pledge to pull back the United States from foreign wars, drawing support from unconventional quarters for a Republican because of the perception that he would pursue an "America First" policy of relative isolationism and national self-interest.But Trump had already drawn criticism from his Democratic rivals and even within his own party for presiding over a chaotic pullback from Syria, and the eruption of large-scale violence in Iran and Iraq could profoundly complicate his aim to seek a second term on a message of peace and prosperity. After Thursday's attack, the Trump administration announced that thousands more troops would deploy to the region in anticipation of Iranian action.At Democratic campaign events Friday, there was already a strong ripple of anxiety running through the primary electorate as voters who turned out to see several candidates voiced alarm as they imagined what Trump might do next."Nobody wants war, and that's what I am afraid of -- is that there is going to be war," said Brenda Bachman, a 63-year-old from Marengo, Iowa, who had come to see Sanders. "We don't need war."Ross Mercer, 37, a disabled Navy veteran in New Hampshire who served two tours in Iraq, said at Buttigieg's event that he was worried about Iranian retaliation."We attacked their country first, and I'm scared that they're going to come back and attack our country," Mercer said.There is some precedent for events overseas reshaping U.S. primary elections, often to the benefit of a candidate regarded as a figure of experience -- in this case, perhaps Biden. In December 2003, the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq formed a backdrop for the final phase of a Democratic presidential primary that yielded the quick nomination of John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.Four years later, in 2007, the troop surge in Afghanistan and the December assassination of a former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, in Pakistan pushed national security to the center of an unsettled Republican primary that ended with the nomination of John McCain, the war hero whose campaign focused overwhelmingly on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Kevin Madden, a political strategist who advised Bush and Mitt Romney's presidential campaigns, said national security tended to become an election issue in response to major external developments. He cited the Benghazi attack in the fall of 2012 and the Paris nightclub massacre in 2015 as other recent examples."Every recent contest has had one of these events," Madden said, "where everything seems to stop and cause all the participants, from the candidates and campaigns to the voters and the media, to recalibrate the stakes of the election through the lens of national security and foreign policy."But an intensifying debate over foreign policy could have the effect of both spotlighting Biden's extensive track record in the Middle East and subjecting it to new scrutiny. There have been signs in recent days that several of the leading Democratic candidates were angling for a foreign policy debate with Biden even before the outbreak of violence in Iraq and the Soleimani killing came to consume the news.Sanders has campaigned consistently on his anti-war record, and he has repeatedly highlighted Biden's past support for the Iraq War, warning Democrats that Trump would use that record against the former vice president in a general election. On Friday morning, an aide to Sanders posted images on Twitter showing the progressive lawmaker speaking out against war in Iraq in 1991, 1998, 2002 and 2014.Biden told reporters in Iowa on Friday that he would not respond to Sanders' criticism, calling it "ridiculous" and countering that Sanders had his own "baggage." He did not specify what he meant by that.Buttigieg, meanwhile, has attempted to counter questions about his own relative inexperience by pointing to Biden's stances on Iraq as an example of how experience was not always an asset in campaigning or governing."He supported the worst foreign policy decision made by the United States in my lifetime, which was the decision to invade Iraq," Buttigieg said in an Iowa television interview.Sanders' speech Friday also indicated how he might use foreign policy to separate himself from other senators who are running for president: He pointed out that he has voted against all of Trump's military budgets, a distinction that Warren and Klobuchar cannot claim.It is impossible to predict precisely how an extended debate over foreign affairs might alter the dynamics of the Democratic race. On Friday, some voters said they yearned for a candidate with Biden-like credentials, while others said they wanted one with a Sanders-like aversion to war."I don't think it would have escalated to this point if he was the current president," Craig Bruxvoort, a 62-year-old Iowa voter, said of Sanders.At Biden's event in Dubuque, Karen Sudmeier, a retired teacher, said she had begun the day considering several options -- including Klobuchar and Buttigieg -- but after hearing Biden speak about the Middle East, she had decided to support him."Joe knew everything about it," said Sudmeier, 72. "He had a plan. And the consequences he laid out of what could happen, I thought, were frightening."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2020 The New York Times Company

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/37tcbMS