Armed Liberal, right after discussing idiotarianism in his home town:
"It's mindblowingly frustrating for me ly, that as I become increasingly convinced that Bush and his Administration are mendacious and lack the real clarity of moral vision and ability to broaden and sell that vision that is required to deal with the current world situation, I become more convinced that the people who oppose his policy are morons. It doesn't leave me with a lot of places to stand on this."Now read Joshua Micah Marshall's "There's more than just U.S. credibility at stake on Iraq". For good measure, add Thomas Friedman's "Chicken a la Iraq".
Looks like A.L. has tapped a deep well here. I grok. Y'all see the outlines of what has to be done, but feel like you're along for a high speed ride with a nearsighted driver. Well, here's a few observations from the peanut gallery on the other side of the fence. On the other side of a couple fences, in fact, seeing as I'm not American:
First of all, I appreciate their stand. Yup, you heard that right. All 3 of these gentlemen have serious reservations, but are willing to support their President because his actions have committed the interests of their nation. That's an admirable thing, and it deserves recognition. Period.
Having said that, I haven't seen a consistent, well thought out roadmap from any of these guys that goes beyond general principles. Nor a description of what the USA should have done instead during the period since 9/11, coupled to some longer term strategy that seems credible. If I'm wrong, show me and I'll be glad to retract it. But without that, the criticisms ring a bit hollow to me.
More than a bit, actually. Especially in light of Tom "hara-kiri" Dashle's mindbogglingly stupid "rush to war" comment today. Just about the most no-win move one could politically imagine right on the eve of a blindingly apparent war, that is highly likely to succeed very quickly, in a country that has always rallied around its flag at such times. And THIS is part of the Democrat leaqdership team who would supposedly have offered their country an intelligent and more politically sensitive approach? Hahahahahahahaa!
But let's get serious for a moment. You say you've got a real solution? Well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan.
CTD...
...CTD
Let's start with Iraq. France isn't going to allow Saddam to be overthrown if they can help it. That's crystal clear, and it's been consistent from day 1. He's theirs, and very possibly they're his too. No amount of diplomacy would have changed that, and the French hold veto power. Which means going to the UN over Iraq has always been a non-starter, with no hope of ever being an effective approach. In light of that, what should the approach have been? Which allies are required? What do you do if, for reasons of their own, they refuse? Tell us.
Iran, the #1 state supporter of state terrorism in the world. Active and large WMD program, including mining uranium and building enrichment facilities. One of their key leaders (Rafsanjani) has openly stated that the destruction of Iran itself in nuclear retaliation would be acceptable if Israel was also destroyed. What's your policy? Where are they on the priority list? How far are you prepared to take it? What do you do if the population rises up and the government starts massacring them? Using what resources? Enquiring minds wanna know.
North Korea... we've covered them here. A lot. You know they're breaking the agreements. You know the A-bomb program is ticking along. Ticking being the operative word, given their past willingness to sell missiles and know-how to the highest bidder. If you choose to do another Clinton deal, what confidence have you that it will be honoured when Clinton's was broken immediately? Why wouldn't they do that again? Please explain why they'd agree to anything that restrictd this freedom of action, when millions have starved rather than slow this program down in the past. Please explain how silence or appeasement offer any protection to your nation against the looming threat. If denial and silence aren't your preferred response, please explain what that response would be.
ly, I expect the reply that "Bush doesn't have a strategy" (so why should we). Which is weak, of course. How about "because your credibility on foreign policy is roughly up there with Trent Lott's on race relations"? You're number two by a looong, looong way - make like Avis. Try harder.
Bash Bush if you like, but it's not enough. Not nearly. Especially if you want to be taken seriously by your country in a time of war. The point isn't "he said, she said," or catcalls from the peanut gallery - it's real solutions to real threats facing the nation. Peggy Noonan is right - unless you offer some, kiss any national majorities goodbye and prepare for an electoral bloodbath in 2004.
Dammit Joe, are you in secret correspondence with my son?? We had a very similar conversation last weekend.
OK, wheels are turning...give me a day or so.
A.L.
Good grief, A.L., you're not expected to unveil a whole strategic plan in a day. One country, one post is fine.
And why do it alone? Notify Joshua Marshall, CalPundit, Dean Esmay, Newsrack, Amygdala, PR of Seabrook, The Agonist et. al. I think Atrios and Demosthenes are beyond hope, but you may differ.
I'd be interested to hear a serious, positive liberal response. Nothing wrong at all with a team effort.
A while back my Aunt said almost exactly what A.L. wrote; however, my response was similar to Joe's except I challenged her, "Your problem isn't with the path, your problem isn't with the policy, your problem isn't with the cost. Your problem is that it's a Republican Administration doing it. And with every success it has, the hole the Democrats must climb out of becomes one foot deeper."
She was quiet for a moment, then whispered, "I think you may be right..."
Politics, it appears, has trumped National Security without many even realizing where their opposition comes from. After all, Clinton had pretty good bi-partisan support when he faced down Saddam; even my Aunt supported the policy then. But now that it's a Republican in the Whitehouse, the opposition can't enjoy our nation's successes, because those successes bode ill for their political agenda and party. At first I thought it was an overt, conscience decision. But, I'm starting to think it's much deeper emotionally.
As I write this I wonder, "why should it surprise me?" After all, my Aunt believes in an interventionist government and equality of outcome. These are, in my mind, essentially emotionally driven solutions for governance. Hence, it shouldn't surprise me that emotions drive the political machine within her heart.
Hence, the washyness of Democratic alternatives to Bush's conduct on the war. (I keep hearing pundits say, "There are sound reason to oppose the war." But I have yet to hear one without a hole big enough to drive Abrams through.) Many really prefer to do it his (Bush's) way, but in supporting Bush on the war they fear validating him as well. They've put themselves between an ideological rock and the electoral hard place. During WWII, the Republican did a pretty good job of being able to separate FDR the Commander and Chief from FDR the Democrat President. Today's Liberals need to learn to do the same, but that's a cognitive process so it's hard for them to do emotionally.
Spark:
It may amuse to to find out that I was a registered Republican for much of last year; I reregistered so that I could vote for Riordan in the gubernatorial primary. I also gave a bunch of cash to a local GOP congressional candidate who I thought was a good guy, and so continue to get interesting invitations to gove $25,000 and come have dinner with the Prez.
My issue isn't that Bush is a GOP president, or even that he's a kinda evangelical conservative. It with the things I see that he's done which I find shortsighted and mendacious...
...but I need to do better than that, and so I have something to write before the next 'Risk' post.
A.L.
You all should go read Walter Russle Mead's description of the Jeffersonian school of American foreign policy.
The bottom line with that political school is that they hate power. And the only power that is real to them -- because they can affect it -- is American power.
The fact that most Democrats and Liberals are in that value cluster means that they are only comfortable when a Democrat is President.
The result is their complete failure on foreign policy, save as a means of supporting their guy in the White House when he has to fulfill the duties of his office. That is why there was little real opposition to Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo interventions from Democrats.
It is also why Democratic internationalists -- their Wilsonian school -- used multi-lateral institutions to project American power. It was the only means they had to American exercise power while hiding it from their own political base.
A.L.,
Actually it does amuse me. You reregistered Repub. to vote for a self-proclaimed Rino (Republican In Name Only).
But you are not necessarily the point (my Aunt and many other Libs are).
"It with the things I see that he's done which I find shortsighted and mendacious...
...but I need to do better than that, and so I have something to write before the next 'Risk' post."
You see, the first part is basicly emotional, you feel something is not right. In the second part you admit that you just can't quite put your finger on it.
Understand, I'm not slamming you, that you intend "to do better..." in quantifying your thoughts speaks highly of you and your willingness to think through your position. I'd say 90% of humans in general don't do that; thus, you're at the top of the intellectual heap. Also note, that I'm not saying that just because you've come to support positions I do. I respect anyone who holds positions different from mine when they can back it up with reasoned thought. However, I will admit, I am impaticent with fools. And that, you are light-years away from.
I guess you could call me a liberal hawk. To be blunt, Saddam must be crushed. But I think that will be the easy part. It's the aftermath that has me concerned.
Here's the thing -- unemployment was up again last month. Over 300 thousand jobs were dumped out of the economy, the most since 9/11. The markets are at a 6-month low. The US Congressional Budget Office estimates that the President's budget would produce a string of federal deficits over the coming decade totalling $1.82-trillion (with a 'T').
Why isn't the administration talking about the possible impact of the war on our economy? Why isn't the media bringing this up?
At last week's press conference only a couple of questions related to the economy. When he was asked what a war with Iraq might do to the U.S. economy, Mr. Bush answered back: "The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action."
Well, then, I certainly hope he's right. Saddam must be crushed. Did I already say that? Right.
But have we, the people, considered the aftermath of the war? Have we made an informed decision about the war based on the long term sacrifices that we'll be forced to make?
That's the context of Tom Friedman's recent comments:
Friedman: "Mr. Bush talks only about why it's right to dismantle the bad Iraq, not what it will take to rebuild a decent Iraq -- a distant land, the size of California, divided like Yugoslavia.
"I believe we can help build a decent Iraq, but not alone. If we're alone, it will turn into a U.S. occupation and make us the target for everyone's frustration.
"And alone, Americans will not have the patience, manpower and energy for nation-building, which is not a sprint but a marathon."
Maybe we, the people, are beginning to grok this. Recently, the respected Quinnipiac College poll found that by a margin of 48-44 per cent, respondents would choose a brand-X Democrat! over Mr. Bush.
More and more it seems like the administraiton has bet everything on the war in Iraq. I hope they know what they're doing.