How should I feel about Fred Thompson in 2008?
Gideon Rachman went to hear Fred Thompson give a big foreign policy speech in Lodon and came away unimpressed: I’m afraid that what he had to say was utterly platitudinous. The US is “an inspiration for all those who seek freedom”; Tony Blair is a “gallant friend” of America; the uncoupling of the Atlantic alliance ...
Gideon Rachman went to hear Fred Thompson give a big foreign policy speech in Lodon and came away unimpressed: I'm afraid that what he had to say was utterly platitudinous. The US is "an inspiration for all those who seek freedom"; Tony Blair is a "gallant friend" of America; the uncoupling of the Atlantic alliance would be a bad thing. Winston Churchill was a great man; Neville Chamberlain was not so great. We should worry about Iran because - "If we know anything from modern history, it is that when fanatical tyrants pledge to wipe out an entire nation, we should listen." He even had the nerve to quote that Harold Macmillan line about the biggest problem in politics being "events, dear boy, events." Haven't heard that one before. Admittedly, he was marginally more interesting in the q&a. He thinks it would be a good idea to blockade Iran, which he describes as a "very, very serious threat." He still thinks it was right to invade Iraq and that there is some evidence that the surge is working. But he is clearly worried that American politicians are going to pull the plug prematurely - "We have a multi-year plan, which the political process might give only weeks or months." As for the goal in Iraq - "We need to do everything possible to avoid the appearance of utter weakness." And America needs to strive to leave the country in something "better than terrible conditions." That, at least, struck me as a fairly realistic assessment of what is achievable. I find it hard - or perhaps just alarming - to imagine Fred Thompson as president. He seemed to me to be not terribly bright. Click here to read Thompson's speech and judge for yourself. After reading it, I'd say two things: 1) His sense of humor is better developed than his policy recommendations for the Middle East. 2) You ain't gonna find a lot of difference between this speech and Mitt Romney's Foreign Affairs article. What do you think?
Gideon Rachman went to hear Fred Thompson give a big foreign policy speech in Lodon and came away unimpressed:
I’m afraid that what he had to say was utterly platitudinous. The US is “an inspiration for all those who seek freedom”; Tony Blair is a “gallant friend” of America; the uncoupling of the Atlantic alliance would be a bad thing. Winston Churchill was a great man; Neville Chamberlain was not so great. We should worry about Iran because – “If we know anything from modern history, it is that when fanatical tyrants pledge to wipe out an entire nation, we should listen.” He even had the nerve to quote that Harold Macmillan line about the biggest problem in politics being “events, dear boy, events.” Haven’t heard that one before. Admittedly, he was marginally more interesting in the q&a. He thinks it would be a good idea to blockade Iran, which he describes as a “very, very serious threat.” He still thinks it was right to invade Iraq and that there is some evidence that the surge is working. But he is clearly worried that American politicians are going to pull the plug prematurely – “We have a multi-year plan, which the political process might give only weeks or months.” As for the goal in Iraq – “We need to do everything possible to avoid the appearance of utter weakness.” And America needs to strive to leave the country in something “better than terrible conditions.” That, at least, struck me as a fairly realistic assessment of what is achievable. I find it hard – or perhaps just alarming – to imagine Fred Thompson as president. He seemed to me to be not terribly bright.
Click here to read Thompson’s speech and judge for yourself. After reading it, I’d say two things:
1) His sense of humor is better developed than his policy recommendations for the Middle East. 2) You ain’t gonna find a lot of difference between this speech and Mitt Romney’s Foreign Affairs article.
What do you think?
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
