War Torn: Why Democrats Can't Think Straight About National Security

[spaniard]

Late in 2000, with one eye on the presidential campaign and the other on history, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger called a group of staffers into his office. He wanted to give a major speech laying out the essence of the Clinton administration's national security doctrine (actually the same doctrine employed by every Democratic president since Wilson - Liberal Internationalism) and the challenge of transformation that lay ahead. We had a good story to tell, he said. Though the administration had not garnered high marks for security savvy in its early years, we had, as they say, grown in office. In the last five years, we had fought--and won--two wars under trying circumstances, deploying cutting-edge weaponry in Bosnia and Kosovo. We had not merely held NATO together but boosted its size and sense of purpose. We had stitched together a new web of agreements and alliances to constrain potential enemies and control weapons of mass destruction. We had seen the future of war: smaller-scale, higher-tech, faster and more diffuse. Now Berger wanted to formalize our thinking about the next challenge: modernizing the military, and American thinking about the military, to meet the new threats. It would have been a great speech, and this former speechwriter has a file of drafts six inches thick to prove it. But Berger never gave it...

In recent months, I've been thinking a lot about that speech and the indifference to military matters that killed it. As the debate over Iraq unfolded, I was dismayed, like most Democrats, to watch the Bush administration hawks nearly destroy the trust of our allies, whom we desperately need in our fight against al Qaeda, by pushing militarily insane plans to overthrow Saddam's regime unilaterally. Nor could I shake the suspicion that the White House timed the drumbeat to influence the November elections. But I was equally dismayed at the feckless, equivocal way in which the Democrats handled the debate...

Since then, there's been plenty of hand-wringing among the leadership and rank-and-file Democrats about how politically inept the party appeared in the face of Bush's saber rattling. But that's the problem. Democrats are in this position precisely because we respond to matters of war politically, tactically. We worry about how to position ourselves so as not to look weak, rather than thinking through realistic, sensible Democratic principles on how and when to employ military force, and arguing particular cases, such as Iraq, from those principles. There are a lot of reasons for this failure, including the long-time split within the party between hawks and doves. But we will never resolve that split, nor regain credibility with voters on national security, until we learn to think straight about war. And we will never learn to think straight about war until this generation of professional Democrats overcomes its ignorance of and indifference to military affairs.

The reasons for this apathy aren't hard to discern. Many Democrats who came of age during the Vietnam War retain a gut-level distrust of the military. Younger staffers, who may not carry the same psychological baggage, have few mentors urging them toward military or security issues. The problem of being the more liberal party and also being credible on national security is neither new nor easy to solve. What made the Cold War liberalism of the FDR-Truman-Kennedy years such a potent and enduring force, after all, was its internal tensions: the mix of support for international law, formal alliances, and hard-nosed realism. Even today, public polling suggests that Americans do favor Democratic multilateralism. But they also want to see leaders who look comfortable with maintaining and, more importantly, using America's military might.

more...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.hurlburt.html

[eallen]

1. Bingo. Too many of those opposed to Bush's Iraq war....

Present themselves as simply opposed to any war. One of my neighbors maintains a sign in his yard counting US dead. Would he do the same, were the war necessary and well-conceived to its ends? Would it then be a shrine honoring the dead, rather than a protest of their lives spent? How possibly can any passerby know?

We need seriously to shake the Vietnam mode of protest and thinking. Or rather, feeling. It did poorly then. And it came back to bite liberals. Jane Fonda had no effect on the course of the Vietnam war, but quite possibly affected the result of the 2004 election.

[leesa]

5. Right. It bit liberals by ending the war.

I agree that the Dems, especially the fake ones of the DLC, need to be saying the words, "illegal" and "immoral" in reference to this war and they need to be pressing to remove Bush from power for war crimes and treason rather than going out to dinner with the criminals and laughing at Bush looking for WMDs under the table.

[eallen]

7. In the dreams of a few who are still tripping the light fantastic.

Blasting something as "immoral" is the practice of ideologues who cannot engage meaningful issues. That's true from the right, when used to label gay marraige and abortion. 'Tis a pity that some from the left think it serves them better.

The surest path now to remove Bush's power is to prevail in the 2006 elections. Keep thinking like the peaceniks of the Vietnam era, and the GOP will thank you while picking up another handful of Senate seats. Once they have 60, we're well and truly screwed.

[Burried News]

28. I don't think we agree but your reminder is haunting.

"Once they have 60, we're well and truly screwed."

[leesa]

48. Right. With fixed elections. So immorality is for idealogues???

Nice to see you in the dirt.

[wyldwolf]

2. Great piece

Here's another:

To be sure, the Democratic Party has not always been weak on global liberalization. Since its founding, the U.S. has promoted democracy abroad, but the idea that American power should be used for this purpose was largely absent from the foreign policy debate before Woodrow Wilson. Until the Vietnam War, Democrats were in favor of a strong effort to spread American values globally. In 1993, Clinton revived this “liberal internationalism” with his appeal to use American power to spread the “bright flame of freedom…throughout all the world.” Democrats rallied behind Clinton’s internationalism because it was a foreign policy born from American liberalism. When Clinton explained to the American people that the U.S. must intervene in Bosnia because “our values and interests as Americans require that we do so,” all but six Democrats in the Senate voted for an amendment giving the president the power to use force. In 1994, Clinton dispatched American troops to restore democracy in Haiti. In the House vote, 88% of Democrats voted to support Operation Uphold Democracy. The same was true for humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and the escalation of American intervention in Somalia: Democrats supported the pursuit of liberal ends backed by American power while Republicans largely opposed it.

In 1993, Clinton spoke for Democrats when he declared, “Our hopes, our hearts, our hands, are with those on every continent who are building democracy and freedom. Their cause is America's cause.” But today, it is the Republican Party and not the Democrats that calls for the use of American power to promote liberalism around the globe. When Bush told the world, with language strikingly similar to Clinton’s, “all who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know…when you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you,” Republicans applauded while Democrats rose in opposition.

The promotion of democracy must remain central to American foreign policy for two reasons. First, liberals believe that, as our Declaration of Independence states, “all men are created equal” and “endowed … with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Not only are all states capable of giving their citizens freedom, democracy and opportunity, but liberals believe it is their duty.

Second, advancing liberalism is the single most effective means to ensuring American security. Liberal states do not fight wars against one another but instead tend to cooperate with each other, working multilaterally through institutions and under the rule of international law. Both Woodrow Wilson and FDR used this democratic peace argument to justify entering the world wars. Furthermore, liberal states do not serve as breeding grounds for terrorists. Instead, by eradicating the conditions that allow a fundamentalist ideology to thrive and replacing it with political, economic and social freedoms, democracy undermines the root causes of terrorism.

In order to regain majority status, bolster the security of America and promote the well being of humanity, Democrats must overcome their uneasiness with American power and with the promotion of democracy and instead renew their commitment to liberal internationalism. We cannot trust the Bush administration to succeed in its efforts to proliferate democracy around the globe. Only liberals, employing all the tools of American foreign policy, will accomplish this task. The future of our nation and the world depends on our success.

http://www.princeton.edu/~in/april05/grinberg.htm

[Burried News]

3. Wolfie, the sheeple at the GOP disappointin ya? Nice try.

From your link:

"Democrats should not be mistaken: American power can successfully promote liberalism around the world. From Japan to the Balkans to Afghanistan our military has succeeded in bringing democracy to places where the glowing light of liberty had yet to shine. Across the globe, liberalism has blossomed under the postwar-World War II economic and political order built by the U.S. And from Iran to the Ukraine, the power of American ideas has bolstered democratic reformers in their courageous efforts to transform their oppressive nations from the inside."

Catapault the propaganda somewhere else.

[wyldwolf]

17. two points for you, Burried News

1. It isn't for you to say what I should and shouldn't post here. Sorry.

2. The quote you provided is very true.

[ProudDad]

25. This is Neo-Con Bullshit -- not "truth"

It wasn't the military, it was a nuanced and flexible foreign policy that resulted in U.S. support for the already present democratic groups and movements in those nations cited, especially Japan, Germany and Italy.

The military is a tool; a blunt, hard to control, and usually inappropriate tool for international relations.

This stupid argument that the military can positively affect any situation is one I keep hearing about "staying the course" in Iraq. This paternalistic bullshit is what PUT the U.S. into the position of international pariah and blundering occupation power. I hate to be the one to tell you but these people whose lives you're talking about controlling are adults and many are democrats and they're quite capable of running their own countries if the U.S. would quit fucking around with their choices. Remember Saddam was a U.S. creation as were the Taliban and Al Qaida.

Sorry, folks but the U.S. doesn't have the corner on the democracy market. In fact, if one counts Central and South America and East Asia, the U.S. has the greatest IMPEDIMENT to democracy in the world.

When the U.S. grows up and gives up on the idea of the Pax Americana and joins the world community, we'll all be better off!

[Burried News]

27. Spot on ProudDad

Somethings need to be said twice or they get burried by the CONjobs.

"This stupid argument that the military can positively affect any situation is one I keep hearing about "staying the course" in Iraq. This paternalistic bullshit is what PUT the U.S. into the position of international pariah and blundering occupation power. I hate to be the one to tell you but these people whose lives you're talking about controlling are adults and many are democrats and they're quite capable of running their own countries if the U.S. would quit fucking around with their choices. Remember Saddam was a U.S. creation as were the Taliban and Al Qaida."

[Robeson]

43. Preach it from the mountain-top, ProudDad. Great post!...

...and nicely put...:thumbsup:

[eridani]

46. Gee, we're promoting liberalism in Uzbekistan?

Last I heard, we were 'rendering' various brown-skinned people there to be boiled by Bushie's good fuckbuddy Karimov. However, if our good pal decides he no longer wants US bases there, how long do you think it will take before we have to 'save' those poor, poor people pining for democracy from 'the Butcher of Tashkent'?

[gratuitous]

6. No, it's a stupid piece

Exhibit A: "In 1993, Clinton spoke for Democrats when he declared, “Our hopes, our hearts, our hands, are with those on every continent who are building democracy and freedom. Their cause is America's cause.” But today, it is the Republican Party and not the Democrats that calls for the use of American power to promote liberalism around the globe."

Can anyone or everyone spot the addition slyly inserted in the second sentence that isn't there in the first sentence? Or does this nitwit writer think that the only way to build democracy and freedom is by projecting American power? Well, we're seeing once again in Iraq the limits to power. Thousands and thousands dead, a bankrupt Treasury, war crimes mounting daily, and American prestige gurgling down the drain.

A brilliant strategy; I wonder why its proponents never seem to get around to pursuing it to its logical conclusion in their own pampered Princeton lives instead of letting the people with so much less to defend go on the front lines for them?

[Burried News]

8. Thanks - isn't it interesting how this got five votes?

I didn't vote for it and I doubt you did.
There has been an orchestrated effort to get this kind of message out - today Biden on NBC also gave us the we must stay routine.
The 'keep the troops in the Middle East' folks want to trash the GOP only to become the GOP. CONfusion - it ain't an accident.

[ClassWarrior]

10. I also don't recognize the OP and most of the other posters...

...agreeing with him/her/it. Isn't that curious?

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

18. before "2003 before July 6th" I wouldn't have recognized you

Isn't THAT curious?

[ClassWarrior]

21. But I wouldn't have even THOUGHT have posting something...

...a rightwing sack of shit entitled "Dems can't think straight" - either then OR EVER. Isn't THAT curious?

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

22. see, your problem is the term "rightwing" isn't accurate

It isn't a "rightwing sack of shit."

By saying that, you're implying that everyone in this thread who agrees with it are "rightwing sacks of shit."

Further, you saying that the author is a "rightwing sack of shit."

However, she's a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Which is why, try as you might, you won't get any sympathy from DU admins and mods because the author has many more Dem bona fides than you.

And that ain't curious at all!

[eallen]

13. The point isn't to keep the troops in the mideast, but to get beyond....

But to get beyond the platitudes. Simply removing troops isn't a foreign policy. No more than simply removing Saddam was a foreign policy.

[Burried News]

14. I am a former Infantry Officer who served in VN. I have two family members

currently in combat branches who have done 3 tours so far in Iraq.
I am not a pacifist. I believe in an American Republic that earns its' riches rather than use its military to steal them from others.

[eridani]

45. What utter horseshit

Your explanation for the US involvement in the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran and Guatemala is what, exactly? If the secular democracy in Iran had been allowed to exist and to divert its oil profits to enriching its own population, would we have had the Ayatollahs at all? I think not.

And what of the $5 billion of our tax dollars spent to build up Osama bin Forgotten's international fundie whackjob Rolodex in Afghanistan in the 80s?

[Burried News]

4. Yeah this is what we need.

From your article.
"Nor do Democrats have subsidized journals of opinion like The Weekly Standard or The National Interest devoted to hashing out serious partisan ideas about defense and foreign policy. Other than Thomas Friedman (and perhaps Fareed Zakaria), there are no prominent left-of-center policy intellectuals in the mold of William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Here, too, the root of the problem is in the general indifference to military affairs among Democrats and their donors."

Maybe we should listen to Henry Kissinger to help us understand all this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101756.html

"For someone like me, who observed firsthand the anguish of the original involvement in Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and who later participated in the decisions to withdraw during the Nixon administration, Casey's announcement revived poignant memories."

Ohh the 'anguish' ohhh the 'poignantcy'. Ohhh how the hell are we going to keep US Troops in the Middle East for the sake of ...

[chieftain]

9. Unless and until, Democrats convince a majority of voters

that we are committed to making the US secure we will not elect a president.This does not mean that we adopt Joe Biden's embrace of the ideas of why we went into Iraq with criticism of the Bush Gang limited to the spectacular ineptitude with which it was executed.It means that we recognize that there are zealots out there who want to harm the US and American citizens and that the Military is one, but not the only, tool we have to combat them.

[Burried News]

15. Freudian slip?

"Military is one, but not the only, tool we have to combat them."

Sorry, I didn't bring children into the world to be anyone's tool. You seek to use that which is not yours. You need a tool - work on that.

Who's 'we'?

[chieftain]

20. Not Freudian, but ,perhaps not as clear as it could have been.

I meant in terms of the military establishment of a country not individual soldiers. The "we" referred to the US. Do you believe there should be no military establishment here? I believe that it is a dangerous world and a strong military is essential. I also believe that it should be used as sparingly as is humanly possible. I was opposed to the Iraq misadventure from the beginning and was heartsick about the bombings we did in the Bosnian War. I am still not convinced it was right.

[Burried News]

23. Thanks for the reasoned comeback. I jumped you for what Kissinger

triggered in me. I am in favor of a strong military and see the one we had as big enough and strong enough for what we faced. It has been badly weakened by the lies that took us to Iraq.

I believe we are very close to a totalitarian state; to strengthen the military and hand it over to a political system that is totally corrupt is a prescription for further deployments, adventures, and disasters.
The Republicans want to break the bank until there is no possibility of pursuing social programs - I feel the same way about war - no more troops or weapons until the control systems are re-established and that includes a reassessment of the war powers act, a reaffirmation of the Geneva Convention and a reassertion by Congress of its' right to provide for meaningful budget review for war expenditures.

The "we" for me is the United States - more specifically as a Constitutional Republic.

[chieftain]

24. I have similar fears. I think that the Bush Gang

has definite fascistic tendencies. Leaving aside all the damage they have done to the environment and our standing in the world, they have a contempt for the electoral process that is truly frightening. I fear for the Republic in ways that I didn't even when Nixon was President.
Peace Brother

[Burried News]

30. Peace here and in the Middle East.

Brother

[KoKo]

11. This article was written in 2002, though.

Some things have changed since then. I don't think that Tom Friedman and Fahred Zacaria are the only credible voices right now for the Left regarding "war policy." There are many other new voices who are gaining credibility now that things have gone so badly in Iraq and now Afghanistan is starting to flare up again.

It's an interesting read...for the history, though.

[bemildred]

12. More simplistic, self-serving propaganda from the War Party PR engine.

Full of vague babble that any intelligent sixth grader would be graded down for in a class on exposition.

Why is all this crap being posted here all of a sudden?

[Burried News]

16. Because 'they' are losin bad - and 'they' aren't just George Bush

The GOP is fragmenting badly. Some with a strong interest in the Middle East are looking to get away from the crazies and hook up again with the DNC via the DLC. If they don't find a home soon they will have to go with only one horse in the next race. They don't like that. They want an 'in' on both horses so they can't lose.

[Guaranteed]

19. This is an anti-DLC piece.

It also takes some shots at the "far left."

But it's totally correct.

[FightinNewDem]

26. Say what?

It's not an anti-DLC piece. If anything, it makes many of the very same points that people like Will Marshall and Steven Nider have been making for the last five years.

And the Washington Monthly is very much a New Democrat publication. It's founder, Charlie Peters is considered one of the founders of the late 70s/early 80s "Atari Democrat"/neoliberal movement that later evolved into the New Dems. Just a few weeks ago, the magazine's editor, Amy Sullivan, was a featured speaker at one of the breakout sessions at the DLC national conference in Ohio.

Feel free to hold your own opinions on the DLC, but don't try to paint a very DLC-ish piece as something it ain't!

[AntiCoup2K4]

33. Why do you consider the advice of a war criminal like Will Marshall.....

..to be a GOOD thing? He's a PNAC'er and just recently held a seminar with Thomas Donnelly, the PNAC treasonous bastard credited with writing the words.... "The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."

Why would you trust these fascist murderers at all?

[bemildred]

32. Bwaaahaaahaaaa. Read this:

"Heather Hurlburt, a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, is a Michigan-based consultant and writer"

The DLC is part of the War Party, and this says very nice things about various DLCers.

It is also utter bilge, propaganda, spun from whole cloth.

[radio4progressives]

29. This is pure poppy cock!

Anyone with a modicum of historical understanding of United States Imperialism and Militarism, deeply rooted in our history sees through this piece of tripe.

sheesh!

[Clark2008]

31. Yep... and that attitude has always kept me from declaring

myself an "official" Democrat (in my state, one needn't be registered with a party to vote in a primary).

It was also confirmed when I started campaigning for Wes Clark during the primaries and too many Dems were turned off because of the "General" in his name without ever reading policy one. If they'd read them, they would have realized that he is more liberal than Howard Dean. In fact, he's just a smidge to the right of Dennis Kucinich and has a helluva lot more of a chance to take a red state than anyone else out there at this point: both because he's FROM a red state and because red state independents respect the military.

[Q]

34. Democrats/Liberals may have grown to distrust the military...

...during the Vietnam Police Action...but put the blame for failed policies where it belonged...on the Commander in Chief.

Most Americans probably don't have an opinion one way or the other when it comes to deciding which political party is 'stronger' on national security. The perception that Democrats are 'weak' on national security is propaganda brought to you by a corporate media that rakes in piggish profits through their defense contractor subsidiaries during a 'time of war'. So why would this same corporate media support a political party that plans to put tax dollars back into the community in the form of social services and infrastructure? There's no profit in humanitarianism. On the other hand...perpetual war meant perpetual profits for pandering patriots.

Then came the DLC to bust up the Democratic party and forge a rationale for replacing social welfare with corporate welfare. But the NeoCons and the NeoDems were having a difficult time convincing Democrats to vote against their own interests. The cold war was kaput. They needed something like another Pearl Harbor to whip the commoners into a nationalistic frenzy so they would willingly stand in line for Cannon Fodder Duty.

9-11 came just in time for the NeoCons and NeoDems. The problem was that the hijacker/terrorists didn't come from the country they were itching to attack before 9-11. But it wasn't a problem for long. The Corporate Media gave the NeoCons and Dems the cover they needed to lie and deceive and get away with it.

Bush was able to illegally invade and occupy Iraq without consequence because of his partnership with the DLC leadership of the Democratic party.

[IndianaGreen]

35. And letting bin Laden escape from Tora Bora helped Bush

keep his bogeyman so that he could go after Saddam. Had bin Laden been captured or killed at Tora Bora, the war would have ended before the neocons could fully implement their profitable PNAC agenda.

National security is a joke! Corporate profits is what drives everything, all they need is to keep us confused, divided, and afraid.

[thiscrowlives]

39. You're dead on there .....

"National security is a joke!"

Too true, too true. If this administration really gave half a shit about national security, they'd be tripping all over themselves to respond to the neo-con howling about border security. Their inattention to security issues here on this continent, and not one 1/2 way around the world, seem to confirm that this is just a personal war for *.

[Sparkly]

36. I disagree with this view.

And I've seen it before. The problem is not where Democrats actually were or are; the problem is how Republicans have PORTRAYED Democrats.

Democrats served in Vietnam, and protested Vietnam. Democrats do NOT suffer some peculiar "psychological baggage." Democrats do not have "ignorance" or "indifference" to "military affairs," nor unfamiliarity.

I really hate this new Supposed-Diagnosis of why Democrats supposedly have some problem with the military that Republicans supposedly don't.

[Clarkie1]

38. I understand, but perception is everything in politics.

The goal is to get the perception and the reality to mesh.

Clark achieves that.

[Sparkly]

40. I'm with you there.

He's an example of the fact that it's all about GOP propaganda, not about Democrats in reality. That's why I disagree with this article.

[Clarkie1]

37. As the liberal party, we need

"leaders who look comfortable with maintaining and, more importantly, using America's military might" to counterbalance the natural tendency of voters to question the willingness of a "liberal" to be prepared to use force when necessary in a post-9/11 world.

We can't promote liberal internationalism without that prerequisite, now more than ever.

Thanks for posting. HIGHLY recommended (wish I could give it more than one vote!)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. "Willingness to project America's military might" has gotten this country

into more trouble than anything I can think of.

They don't "hate us for our freedoms." They hate us because we act more like a Mafia enforcer than like a beacon of democracy.

A REAL LEADER wouldn't play to the "mean and dumb" crowd that wants to "kick ass," without caring much whose ass gets kicked. A REAL LEADER would LEAD the American people to an understanding that true security comes not from acting like we own the world and have the right to slap down anyone who inconveniences our corporations but from making friends through mutual cooperation.

That article is more DLC nonsense. We can't actually DO anything about the declining state of the working and middle classes (that might cut the shareholders' profits), so we'll make them FEEL powerful by "kicking the asses" of countries full of dark-skinned people.

[Clarkie1]

42. We agree.

I agree with this:

"A REAL LEADER wouldn't play to the "mean and dumb" crowd that wants to "kick ass," without caring much whose ass gets kicked. A REAL LEADER would LEAD the American people to an understanding that true security comes not from acting like we own the world and have the right to slap down anyone who inconveniences our corporations but from making friends through mutual cooperation."

100 percent!

[eridani]

44. Military might for the purpose of aggression will destroy us

And it hasn't been directly used for anything else since WW II. We had to have it as long as the Soviet Union also had a powerful military machine, thereby subjecting us to the ongoing temptation of fucking over weaker countries on behalf of our corporate elite. The complete and utter disappearance of "hard-nosed realism," correlates exactly with the demise of the Soviet Union, which was taken to render it unnecessary.

Dems (who always tried to share the imperial loot with the rest of the population) are no longer necessary to the Masters of the Universe, who now feel free to take it all for themselves.

[bemildred]

47. Well said. It's been one long, downhill slide since WWII. nt