Winds of Change.NET: Defining A Liberal Hawk's Policies

November 12, 2003

Defining A Liberal Hawk's Policies

by Armed Liberal at November 12, 2003 3:09 AM

A little over a week ago, I wrote a series of suggested position statements for Democratic hawks.

Kevin Drum and I agreed to have an interblog discussion, which I hope will widen to other blogs; we'll have a back-and-forth on these and see where we agree, where we disagree, and possibly lay out some ground to all stand on together.

Here's what I wrote:

First, we're not going anywhere in Afghanistan or Iraq until we're done. Afghanistan will not turn into Vermont any time soon, but we will make sure that the power of the warlords is checked, and that it doesn't collapse again. Iraq could be the leader of the Middle east, and we intend to help build it into that;

Second, we're too dependent on ME oil. We're going to do something about it, both by pushing conservation, expanding alternative energy, and expanding exploration. We're going to build the damn windmills off of Cape Cod;
Third, we're going to stop Israel from building new settlements and push them to dismantle existing illegal ones;

Fourth, we're going to work to expand the ground-fighting capabilities of our military by adding at least one division to the Army, and looking carefully at the allocation of all our assets to make sure that we have the resources to deal with the kind of wars that we are going to realistically face;

Fifth, we're going to sit with the Arab countries we are supporting and make it clear that they cannot buy internal stability by fomenting hate against Jews and the West and still expect our financial and military support. We will also talk about what kinds of support would be forthcoming if they did stop;

Sixth, we're going to develop security mechanisms based on the theory that fine-grained systems that bring information and communications to the existing public safety community, as well as the public at large are better than huge, centralized bureaucratic solutions;

He suggested - and I completely agree - that we add "internationalism" to the list.

So I'll add a seventh position as soon as I can come up with one. I've been thinking about this issue for about a month and I just keep getting a headache; I'm trying to contain two beliefs that appear contradictory.

First, that we really do need help on a number of levels - intelligence and law enforcement data needs to be pooled; we need explicit cooperation in monitoring the international traffic in weapons and cash; and, bluntly, we don't have and won't soon have the manpower to deal with all the issues that we're facing.

Second, our traditional allies don't necessarily have parallel interests with us in this (or, more accurately, they don't perceive that they have parallel interests). This means it won't be easy to both do the things which we believe we need to do and to get help from other countries in doing it.

So then here's the question - how do we re-align our interests? In part, I think we don't, and that some of our alliances forged in the Cold War are dead letters today, and that we simply need to politely acknowledge that and then make new alliances to replace them. And in part, I think that we have to work very damn hard to get what support we can in this arena.

I do think that what I hear from the mainstream Democratic candidates on this is largely piffle and wishful thinking (and yes, I know I need to explain this).

The ShrinkLits version is this: To hand Iraqi reconstruction and the conduct of the war over to NATO, or god-forbid, the U.N. is going to be a disaster. The leading NATO countries didn't want to go, and they certainly won't want to stay long enough to effect the kind of change we're discussing. The U.N. ... well, just forget the U.N. for now. I'm working on a post about it in my odd moments.

So on one hand, we need help, and on the other, we're unlikely to get it. Like I said, I keep getting a headache. But now that I'm publicly committed to taking some kind of position, I'll just get a big bottle of Excedrin and some tea, sit down, and think it through.

And meanwhile, I'll get something up tomorrow on Point One above.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/2022

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"Defining A Liberal Hawk's Policies"

Comments

#1 from FH at 4:23 am on Nov 12, 2003

NATO needs to be replaced, its role is over. We need to form a new version of NATO, to confront the threat of Islamofacism. Something global, with countries across the world united to oppose Islamist aggression. This is a pure rip off of Command and Conquer, I know, but we really need a GDI, Global Defense Initiative. A global defense pact designed in many ways like NATO, composed of our friends and allies, countries with whom we have common interests and values. I am talking about the UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Spain, Italy(easier said than done, considering how long their governments last)some other European nations, along with any African and South American ones who might be interested. India too, if possible. Basing rights, overflight rights, sailing rights, intelligence cooperation, armedcoalitions for offensive and defensive actions. Mutual Defense for the 21st century. And representative governments only. The time for keeping around despots is over.

#2 from Howard Owens at 4:35 am on Nov 12, 2003

Picking up on comment above ... I've previously advocated forming a new alliance -- an alliance of democratic nations. However, since that would currently include France and Germany, membership needs to be a bit more restricted than that. We need an alliance of democratic nations that are committed to fostering demoracy where it currently doesn't exist, starting in those countries (read the Middle East) where it best suits our current strategic needs. This organization would be modeled after NATO, and may supercede NATO, but wouldn't necessarily replace it (I think NATO may still serve some purpose, though I'm not quite sure what).

#3 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 4:56 am on Nov 12, 2003

I’m scratching my head: I thought I was a liberal dove, but I am 100% behind all six points. Probably the internationalist point, too, as soon as it's fleshed out.

On the other hand, comes now the first conclusion, "To hand Iraqi reconstruction and the conduct of the war over to NATO, or god-forbid, the U.N. is going to be a disaster." and I don't agree at all. (We can discuss why later.) Do you think this is entailed by your seven points, or is it independent?

#4 from Armed Liberal at 5:22 am on Nov 12, 2003

Andrew -

No, it's independent, but it obviously has a strong interaction with how each of them plays out.

But, simply, the UN or NATO would bail as soon as possible given their track record in the face of actual hostile military action. Everyone, I believe, knows it - and to many of the Dems it's simply a fig leaf for a withdrawal.

And knowing that you were facing an enemy who's looking for an excuse to quit isn't exactly a call to wage peace...

A.L.

#5 from Scott at 6:47 am on Nov 12, 2003

I like the idea of an alliance of democratic nations, or GDI. I'm not sure we necessarily want to keep France and Germany out, but perhaps we ought to have some sort of requirement that the member nations contribute some sort of highly mobile, well-equipped fighting force. Some sort of sliding scale linked to GDP or something could determine the level of investment. That gives everyone a dog in the hunt, even if it's only a Pekinese. And what you learn to do, you begin to love.

Speaking of that, apparently the French like some Texans, provided they learn the language.

#6 from Kirk Parker at 8:08 am on Nov 12, 2003

> the UN ... would bail as soon as possible given
> their track record in the face of actual hostile
> military action

Quite true, but that's not the only reason to oppose the UN's participation. They've done a lot of actual harm in places like Bosnia and the West Bank (the latter in particular would be far better off if the UN had cut and run decades ago.)

#7 from Dave Schuler at 2:10 pm on Nov 12, 2003

Dear A. L.:

The underlying assumption of your position is that it is possible to bring democracy, freedom, and liberal government to Iraq. What in Iraq's history, the history of the Middle East, or the history of the United States leads you to that conclusion? Please remember that something being unpleasant or even unthinkable does not make it untrue. That all people are worthy of democracy, freedom, and liberal government does make it either possible or even likely.

On the contrary, the history of Iraq is one of autocracy and oppression, the history of the Arab people is one summarized by:

I against my brother.
Both of us against our cousins.
All of us against other tribes.
The tribes against the Other.

This does not appear to me to be a formula for democracy, freedom, or liberal democracy. Finally, our successes in reforming the cultures of Germany and Japan following World War II were completely predicated on presenting both Germany and Japan with the alternatives of complete capitulation or extermination of their people and their culture. We demonstrated both the ability and the will to do these (horrible) things.

The reason that I opposed the war with Iraq (and continue to do so) is that I do not believe that there is a national consensus to exert the level of force required, we do not have the will to do so, and until we do our actions are a waste of human life and wealth, both U. S. and Iraqi.

Here's the formula: if you don't will the means, you cannot will the end.

#8 from Pouncer at 2:16 pm on Nov 12, 2003

Next -- Beef up the Peace Corps, augmenting teachers and farmers with a lot more loan officers, cops, sewage system engineers, land-and-title bureaucrats ... In parallel beef up "Voice of America" broadcasting in Farsi and Arabic, augmenting news programming with rock and roll, satirical comedy, and soap-opera-style history and biography of true freedom fighters around the world.

For energy independence -- push for "smart" electrical meters that implement differential pricing. Push for co-generation small (if twenty percent of New England's furnaces burning diesel oil for heat ran the fuel thru engines-connected-to-small-electric-generators, how many nuclear-reactor replacements would that represent?) and large (if Canadian-style non-enriched uranium CANDU nuclear reactor/generators were built in urban areas and the (non-radioactive) end-steam/hot water were piped to heat office buildings, how many industrial furnaces could be replaced?) Speaking of stealing Canadian technology: take their shale-to-oil process and let the guys from MIT have a crack at bringing the price-per-barrel down. North America has a LOT of shale ...

Push for space. Re-issue the JFK challenge to go to the moon within a decade -- this time to stay.
(Blame Nixon and the Republicans generally for killing the lunar program "early"!)

Grab the "third rail" and agree to talk about Social Security Reform. (Shoot anybody who mentions a "lockbox".) Raise or eliminate FICA
caps, means test benefits, boost the retirement age, divert a token part of contributions toward
private accounts, agree that ALL the options need to be on the table for discussion.

Agree to discuss Kyoto-alternatives. Take increasing use of fossil fuels as at least one possible future -- what sorts of carbon-sequestration will be needed? Is that cheaper or more expensive than emissions-reduction?

Attack John Ashcroft via Janet Reno. Ask if the siege at Waco or the capture of Elian Gonzales were better done in the secrecy afforded by the Patriot Act. Ask if the airport security needed in Reno's Miami is REALLY the same as the security needed in Ashcroft's St. Louis. Make the point that civil liberties are more a matter of the law, (recently made more dangerous by the Republicans) than of the law enforcement officer (even if you happen to be the sort who worried about Granite Janet's excesses.)

Denounce the "War on Terror" as too open-ended. How can we know when we've won? Compare a "Declaration of War" to an arrest warrent, a formal process that limits the borders to be breeched, the places to be searched, and the persons to be seized, and the duration of the efforts.

#9 from Pouncer at 2:33 pm on Nov 12, 2003

Dave Schuler:

How do you know democracy is possible in the United States? Jefferson was doubtful the constitution would endure for two generations. Lincoln, long before Viet Nam, destroyed a nation in order to save it. "Oh, the farmers and the cowboys should be friends..." but range wars killed hundreds -- soaking stolen lands already reddened by the murders of thousands from the "tribes".

But at least in part the tribes -- the Iroquois Confederacy -- provided an example. Not democracy, per se. But representative republic.
Democracy consolidated to polities which then divide and share power.

A centuries-old experiment that seems equally well suited to application among Shia, Kurd, Sunni, and secularist factions in a fractured land. It might not work any better, there, than it has here. Civil War, class war, race riots, labor riots, slavery, genocide ... shit happened here, and we're still coping with the fallout. It's not about bringing a perfected system to Iraq.

It's about offering a widow's mite. A cracked pot. Stone soup. T'aint much, but welcome to it: it's the best we got.

An honorable tribe would offer nothing less.

#10 from Sam at 4:36 pm on Nov 12, 2003

First...

Second... ANWAR? California off-shore oil? Coal? Nuclear? Personally, I have a hard time taking anyone talking about energy independence seriously if they are anti-nuclear.

Third... What means are you prepared to take to stop Israel? Stiff diplomatic notes? Cut off all aid? Invade?

Fourth... What threats do you see that adding an army division would help counter? I don't feel we are short of troops in Iraq, we are short of police. Afghanistan probably needs more of both.

Fifth... What means are you prepared to take to stop...

Sixth... Huh? Is this the cell phones and pagers emergency distribution net?

Sam

#11 from praktike at 4:51 pm on Nov 12, 2003

Lest we forget, there are plenty of Al Qaeda cells in Germany and France.

So we need them in order to deal with the real threat to American security, whether they are with us on this neoconservative wet dream or not.

We saw several Al Qaeda guys released in Europe because these country's legal systems hadn't been reformed to accomodate the war on terror. Trying to get other nations to reform on a bilateral basis seems extremely inefficient to me; an international convention on terror could streamline and make uniform the legal mechanisms we need in order to put the bad guys away permanently.

#12 from Joe Katzman at 5:18 pm on Nov 12, 2003

Firsrt, praktike, you're the first person I've ever heard who describes the torturous, decade-long process of broad international agreements as "efficient." Perhaps this is some new definition of the term?

Second, trying to get other nations to reform their anti-terrorism laws on a bilateral basis may or may not be efficient, but it gets you faster progress in some areas that doesn't have to dumb down to the lowest common denominator. Which may be more EFFECTIVE.

Bilateral agreements deal with those predisposed to cooperate. Broad international agreements include those predisposed NOT to cooperate. For reasons that escape me, you choose to bet on the latter in place of the former.

If a bilateral agreement results in an apprehension or extradition that prevents an attack before a multilateral process can finish, or because the bilateral treaty covered something an international convention (what, you mean signed by Iran, Syria, Libya, et. al.?) couldn't get agreement on... how "efficient" would abandoning that bilateral option for a broader process be?

Efficiency isn't everything. Didn't some guy named Robert McNamara demonstrate that by negative example in a place called Vietnam? I would have thought a liberal would remember the lesson.

#13 from praktike at 5:35 pm on Nov 12, 2003

Joe, I knew that would get you going...I was going to include a pre-rebuttal, but I figured I'd see what you came up with. :)

That said, I regret using the word "inefficient." You are right to slam me on that. I certainly don't believe that international consensus-building is efficient.

And you're right that bilateral means are more effective in the short run.

In the long run, however, we need uniformity and a clear international commitment to stamp out international terrorism. That means definining what it is and isn't. If this were focused specifically on Al Qaeda, I believe consensus would be possible. If Hezbollah and Hamas were brought into the equation, then it wouldn't fly.

#14 from Robin Roberts at 5:45 pm on Nov 12, 2003

Pouncer writes: "Ask if the siege at Waco or the capture of Elian Gonzales were better done in the secrecy afforded by the Patriot Act."

This is another claim about the Patriot Act that simply isn't true.

#15 from Robin Roberts at 5:49 pm on Nov 12, 2003

praktike writes: "In the long run, however, we need uniformity and a clear international commitment to stamp out international terrorism. That means definining what it is and isn't. If this were focused specifically on Al Qaeda, I believe consensus would be possible. If Hezbollah and Hamas were brought into the equation, then it wouldn't fly."

Basically, praktike, your last sentence nullifies your point. You are saying that to get an international "consensus" against terrorism, we would have to concede that terrorism aimed at Jews is acceptable. You've more than made Joe's point.

#16 from praktike at 5:52 pm on Nov 12, 2003

robin--but they're different problems. I said "international terrorism." The Israel situation is much more complicated.

#17 from praktike at 6:18 pm on Nov 12, 2003

to be precise, I should have said "terrorism of global reach"--a useful formulation the administration seems to have forgotten.

#18 from Joe Katzman at 6:47 pm on Nov 12, 2003

Praktike...

It's convenient to say that the Israel is different, because then one is free to apply "do as I say, not as I do" to them. And that is so pernicious I can't let it slide.

First, the Palestinian problem is NOT a domestic Israeli issue, it's an international one first and foremost. Second Hamas, Hezbollah & Islamic Jihad do have international reach and fit Bush's definition (which may be why they're on the official blacklists).

The PLO and the Palestinian cause were started as an international effort by the Arab League to continue their war for Israel's destruction by proxy, and depended on Arab countries following none of the precedents from past examples like India-Pakistan, Greece-Turkey, et. al., or indeed the concurrent example of Jewish refugees into Israel from Arab countries. State support from Iran and Syria, among others, remain critical to the effectiveness of Palestinian terror.

Peace will come ONLY when the Arabs decide to give up their war against Israel - the Palestinians are largely irrelevant, as any "peace process" will be sabotaged at the direction of the Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, et. al. And has been, repeatedly. They are not about to give them their #1 source of diverting internal discontent with their despotic regimes, and could care less about Palestinian welfare (N.B. where does the U.N. money that provides services to the Palestinian refugee camps come from? Not them).

So, it's not a "domestic" Israeli problem. The most you can say is that managing it may have domestic Israeli aspects. But it can't be fixed there.

Now, international...

How about the Iranian-backed bombing (c/o Hezbollah, I believe) that killed 85 people (mostly Jews) in Argentina? Seems significant to me. Note that Hamas, Hezbollah, et. al. maintain a significant presence in the "tri-border" area of South America. That's intercontinental.

Furthermore, Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad operatives would appear to be running car bombs into buildings in Baghdad. What do you think it means when people refer to 'Syrian' inflitrators, recalling that Lebanon is a Syrian colony?

And do you not find it something of a coincidence that the M.O. for the Iraqi car bombings, many of which sem to have 'Syrian' connections, is not only taken from the Hezbollah/Hamas playbook, but shows significant operational competence in these areas? That doesn't happen by accident, and even trained Ba'athists who wished to use this method wouldn't have it down so quickly.

That looks pretty international in its reach to me. It also looks like a war against many of the same people. Perhaps because it is.

One may argue back and forth about Israeli policies, and the best approach. But refusal to acknowledge the dynamics of the situation, and willingness to whitewash the scope and reach of groups like Islamic Jihad et. al., are not the approach of an even-handed or neutral agenda.

#19 from Andrew Lazarus at 7:35 pm on Nov 12, 2003

In September 2003 (at long last) the EU blacklisted Hamas, including its so-called political wing, as a terrorist group. [link]

The problem with the EU and Israel revolves, hard as it may be to believe, mostly around the echoes of colonialism in the Jewish settlement program that reverberate much louder in Europe than here, and not in a lingering European affection for the Nazis. (Note that Armed Liberal put settlement freeze and partial removal on his own list!)

#20 from Robin Roberts at 9:40 pm on Nov 12, 2003

praktike,

Hmmm. Just "terrorism of global reach".

Palestinian terrorism against Israel ... lets see, Japanese terrorists attacking Lod airport, Palestinians terrorizing Lebanon, Hezbollah attacking synagogues in Argentina, Palestinians attacking Olympic games in Germany, the attack on OPEC meeting by Carlos in Geneva ... Nope, as I've said you've completely contradicted yourself.

#21 from Dave Schuler at 9:58 pm on Nov 12, 2003

Dear Pouncer:

Please don't take offense at this but you've given me a rhetorical response rather than a substantive response.

Your points are:

1. Is liberal democracy possible anywhere?

A perfect liberal democracy? Of course not.
But something a hell of a lot better than
anything in the Middle East? Duh. BTW in
1790 every Congressman represented 38,000
constituents. In 2000 every Congressman
represented 680,000 constituents. Something
to think about.

2. Why would anyone in 1776 think that democracy
was possible here?

150+ years of self-rule. The distance between
the Colonies and England left the Colonies
largely on their own. Plus a long-standing
English tradition of law and limits on
government. Nothing like this exists anywhere
in the Arab world. And we weren't surrounded
by royalist "English brothers" eager to
tear down what was being built.

3. It's better than nothing.

The loss of 100's of U. S. solders, 1,000's
of Iraqi lives, and the spending of 100's
of billions of dollars only to withdraw in
failure is better than nothing? Wouldn't it
be better to build consensus at home first?

A perfectly reasonable counter-response to my answer to point 3 is that it would be far more costly in lives and wealth to wait for the next 9/11-style terrorist attack. I agree--I was ready for a full "Jacksonian" response following 9/11 but the Bush admin was more temperate than I. It's rather sad that Bush hasn't gotten more credit for the mildness of the U. S. response.

#22 from Yehudit at 1:38 am on Nov 13, 2003

"The problem with the EU and Israel revolves, hard as it may be to believe, mostly around the echoes of colonialism in the Jewish settlement program that reverberate much louder in Europe than here."

That's what the Arab world and its useful idiots in Europe wants you to believe. But it doesn't explain why systematic terrorism against Jews in Israel predates any settlements in the West Bank. Also Israel has a track record of giving land for true peace, even if it's a "cold" peace: the Sinai. So settlements shouldn't be the stumbling block they are unless the real issue is something else, like Israel's right to exist.

#23 from praktike at 2:36 am on Nov 13, 2003

ok, no more contradictions. let me spell it out: take israel off the table, because it's too damn complicated and controversial.

#24 from Howard Owens at 4:20 am on Nov 13, 2003

When I see sentiments along the lines of "Iraq can't be a democracy," I can't help but think "racist." That's probably unfair, but when you boil down the assertion that any group of people can't be or don't want to be free, then you are essentially saying those people are some how different than the rest of us, and since presumably the speaker is a person who enjoys freedom, then you must conclude the speaker is saying those people who are different because of the inability to be free are not only different, they are inferior. To me, that defines racism.

All people are capable of being free. The only people who don't want freedom for their community, or country are the dictators, their cronies and their lackeys. It's a basic human impluse and an absolute right that is only frustrated by other people's lust for power and greed.

What makes democracy is not the people; it's the laws and the institutions. All people, all humans, are capable of self-government. It's just a matter of creating the right framework.

The question is, and I by no means am convinced the answer is yes, is the Bush Administration capable of not botching Iraq?

#25 from FH at 6:31 am on Nov 13, 2003

I agree with Howard, it is ultimately racist. To say that they are completely incapable of achieving something like representative government is to suggest what the Left all too often accuses certain "warblogs" of saying: Arabs are inferior.

The truth is that Arab culture is inferior, and needs to be changed. It is happening already in Iraq. The presence of foreign arabs and their attacks on Iraqis are in fact making the Iraqi people MORE nationalistic. They think of themselves as Iraqis first, Arabs second. That is a big change from the pan-Arabism in other Arab nations. Its not going to be easy, but it has to be done.

If it isn't, then there is only one alternative.

#26 from Tom Grey at 7:40 am on Nov 14, 2003

AL - dependency on ME oil: raise gas taxes. Monthly. By 1 penny. Until we stop importing oil -- perhaps 50-100 cents/gal.

The international group needs to be ONLY democracies -- it can NOT be the UN (a talking shop). It needs to include powerful democracies that occassionally disagree; France and Germany must be allowed in. It needs a mechanism to allow those who agree on action to do so, while allowing other "allies" to disagree.

I propose a NATO Human Rights Enforcement Group, for this purpose. Objectively define, measure, and rate the free speech human right (article 19 of UN Dec'l), by having the HReg attempt to publish a gov't critical newspaper in every country. Those countries that have signed on to human rights, but don't follow it, should be subject to HR enforcement action.

Any resolutions of the HReg should include a timetable of compliance.