In general
Among major Republican candidates for the presidency, it’s difficult to judge who is the most hawkish, especially between former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain. Both, for example, have revised Vietnam War history to conclude that the war could have been won and that, as Giuliani wrote, “by about 1972 we and our South Vietnamese partners had succeeded in defeating the Vietcong insurgency and in Setting South Vietnam on a path to self-sufficiency.” The comparison is important as it sets a parallel between Vietnam and Iraq — two wars the United States seemingly could not win, that Giuliani explicitly says it could have won, and in Iraq’s case should still win.
The projection of a United States at once invincible and responsible for fighting an almost perpetual “war on terror” infuses Giuliani’s foreign policy perspective, with 9/11 as the mantra-like soundtrack to every issue. With neoconservatism founder and author of “World War IV” Norman Podhoretz as his foreign policy adviser, Giuliani believes in the theory of a “clash of civilizations,” with the West representing the world’s best hope for democracy and freedom. “Civilization itself,” he writes of 9/11, “and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical enemy.”
On Terror
Fondest of evoking 9/11 references in every form and context, Giuliani has coined a supplemental description for the “war on terror.” He calls it, in capitals, “The Terrorist’s War on Us.” Writing in Foreign Affairs, he says “this war will be long, and we are still in its early stages. Much like at the beginning of the Cold War, we are at the dawn of a new era in global affairs.” He promises to “set a course for victory in the terrorist’s war on global order,” suggesting that the Bush administration’s last seven years’ war may not have yet set that course. He wants to “mobilize the 9/11 generation for the momentous task ahead,” but he does not define it beyond suggesting that Iraq and Afghanistan won’t be peaceful countries any time soon.
On Iraq
Giuliani is opposed to a withdrawal or a draw-down of American forces from Iraq until the country is secure. “Our aim,” he wrote in reference to Iraq, “should be to help them build accountable, functioning governments that can serve the needs of their populations, reduce violence within their borders, and eliminate the export of terror. As violence decreases and security improves, more responsibility can and should be turned over to local security forces. But some U.S. forces will need to remain for some time in order to deter external threats. We cannot predict when our efforts will be successful.” Giuliani sees any kind of withdrawal from Iraq as the worst option. He compares such a withdrawal to American forces’ withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia 10 years later, which he says convinced “radical Islamic terrorists […] that our will was weak.” While pressing for an open-ended occupation of Iraq, Giuliani also calls for a massive build-up of American armed forces, including “a minimum of ten new combat brigades.”
On Iran
Judging from what his Middle East adviser, Norman Podhoretz, has said, Giuliani believes that nothing short of bombing Iran will prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. That’s what Podhoretz believs and outlines in his book, World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (Doubleday, 2007). ““I was asked to come in and give him a briefing on the war, World War IV,” Podhoretz, a staunch neoconservative, told the New York Observer. “As far as I can tell there is very little difference in how he sees the war and how I see it.” In the Republican presidential debate on Oct. 9, 2007, Giuliani said, “we have to be willing to use a military option to stop Iran from becoming nuclear. If we are willing to do it, we have a much better chance of having sanctions work.”
Belittling Mitt Romney
Giuliani belittled and mis-characterized GOP presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s remark that he would consult with lawyers before attacking. Romney was responding to a question about whether he would involve Congress in that decision. In that context, Romney responded that “[y]ou sit down with your attorneys and they tell you what you have to do, but obviously, the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us.” In an interview with ABC News, Giuliani responded: “Basically right out of the box, first thing, you’re faced with imminent attack on the United States, I don’t think you call in the lawyers first. I think maybe the generals, the ones you call in first, they’re the ones you want to talk to.” The question to Romney, however, had not been about an “imminent” attack from Iran, but about a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s supposed nuclear facilities.
