McConnell, Boehner, and the post-policy approach to Iraq

Posted with permission.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mcconnell-boehner-and-the-post-policy-approach-iraq

McConnell, Boehner, and the post-policy approach to Iraq
06/18/14 11:44 AM
By Steve Benen


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared his dissatisfaction yesterday with the Obama administration’s policy in Iraq, and urged the White House to act quickly. Act how?

Hmm. Well, on the other side of Capitol Hill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is also dissatisfied and insisted President Obama “get engaged” in Iraq. Engaged how?



The Obama administration is providing equipment and technical assistance to Iraq. Why the war-time Speaker of the House doesn’t know that is unclear.

What we’re left with is the latest example of the Republicans’ post-policy problem. They know they disagree with the White House, but they’re not sure why and they have no idea what alternative policy they’d prefer.

Their approach to foreign policy is far more basic. What are they against? Whatever Obama’s for. What policy do they support? Something other than the policy Obama supports.

At least with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and their allies, there is an underlying policy recommendation. It’s wrong and it doesn’t work, but at least they bring something to the table: a vision in which U.S. troops should be deployed, pretty much everywhere, in response to just about every international challenge that arises.

But the top Republicans in the House and Senate aren’t willing to be nearly as clear. Despite their leadership posts, Boehner’s and McConnell’s foreign policy is “not Obama’s foreign policy.”

In terms of the broader significance, let’s recall the first time we started talking about the post-policy thesis, back in March 2013, when Rachel asked Ezra Klein about the ongoing fiscal fight at the time. “Does that mean that {Republican policymakers are} post-policy?” she asked, adding, “It’s pure politics, just positioning themselves vis-a-vis the president, and they’re not actually invested in any particular outcome?”

Think about how broadly applicable that question is. It certainly seems to apply to U.S. policy in Iraq more than a year later.

What’s more, the fact that Boehner and McConnell don’t have any kind of policy recommendations in this area, other than “do something different,” reinforces the belief that at this point, there really isn’t a clear Republican Party foreign policy. To be sure, there are GOP officials with their own individual set of beliefs, but for the first time in generations, there is no real clarity about what the party itself believes on an institutional level about how the United States should exercise its role in the world.

And that’s unlikely to change anytime soon. Looking ahead to some of the party’s possible leaders in 2016 and beyond, we see a variety of ambitious conservatives – Cruz, Paul, Ryan, Rubio, Christie – none of whom are on the exact same page when it comes to foreign policy.

Finally, I can only hope McConnell and Boehner saw this portion from last night’s A block:



I’m afraid “I don’t know enough of the details about the airstrikes to comment” isn’t an especially compelling response.