Bob Barr: He's In It to Lose It

By William R. Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, May 15, 2008

Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican congressman from 1995- 2003, formally announced his campaign for president on the Libertarian Party ticket on Monday, May 12. It was widely reported that his candidacy will take votes away from the GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, similar to the way Ralph Nader’s campaign will hurt the Democratic nominee. But while Barr was a conservative Congressman, he has moved rapidly to the left since breaking with the Republican Party two years ago. He has claimed that a McCain victory would be a “third term” for the Bush administration. On issues of national security and foreign policy, he now sounds more like Nader or Barack Obama. Instead of running to the right of McCain, Barr will be running well to his left – perhaps even further left than the Democratic nominee. Indeed, one of his best-known competitors for the nomination is far-leftist Mike Gravel.

At his announcement, Barr claimed he was “in it to win it,” echoing Hillary Clinton’s losing campaign. But his positions indicate, like Gravel, Barr is “in it to lose it” when it comes to the War on Terror, or any contest against America’s foreign enemies.

In a video posted on the left-wing Huffington Post the day of his announcement, Barr says, “Only a fool would signal to whatever our adversaries are, whoever our adversaries are, exactly how and when we would be drawing down our troops. But I do believe that it is extremely important, and in the best interests of America's defenses and our security, and our relationship with our allies, that we do begin immediately setting in place a plan to draw down, dramatically decrease the military, the economic and the political footprint that we maintain in Iraq.” Barr’s vagueness about who the enemy is in Iraq, be it al-Qaeda or Iranian-backed militias, makes it easier for him to ignore the consequences of his proposed withdrawal of all tools of American influence from the region. Allies and those considering whether to align with the United States, are not going to be favorably impressed by a demonstration of American weakness; nor is crippling political divisions at home a persuasive argument for democracy.

Only five months ago, Barr noted, “Regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq – and I am among those believing the invasion and continued occupation of this Middle Eastern nation (‘nation building,’ if you will) was and remains ill-advised – the performance of our armed forces in Iraq improved dramatically this past year, especially in the last half of the year.” Barr’s advocacy of a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground or the consequences, is the manifestation of ideology, not strategic reasoning. Barr exudes Isolationism, a naïve desire to retreat into an idyllic world far different than the one that actually exists. As America learned the hard way during the 1930s, the rest of the world won’t go away.

Barr opposes any military action against Iran, even though he acknowledges Tehran’s quest for nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups. In a column last October, he called for “strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran” without offering any specifics. At the same time, he argued “What is important, however, should be to quell the simplistic blustering by the White House and by many presidential candidates designed to prove each will be tougher on Iran than the others. Also helpful would be putting a lid on unnecessary and repetitive insults and threats directed at the Ahmadinejad administration.” In the months since his column, Iran has shown that it has no respect for the diplomatic approach of the U.S. and its European allies. Not only is the Tehran regime moving ahead with its nuclear program, but it has felt secure enough to unleash its Hezbollah proxy army against the Lebanese government, which is supposedly backed by the same Western powers. CONTINUED