My Foreign Policy Plan

To avoid the accusation that I can only criticize the leadership of my party and have no real ideas of my own, I am finally presenting the first of my foreign policy papers. I do not act like these are new or creative. But I do think they match with Democratic principles in most cases, although they might be a little hawkish.

One of my main concerns is how the Muslim world views us. What President Bush correctly realizes is that we have enemies out there whose only goal is our destruction. Many of these enemies do not need an excuse and will attack us no matter what we do. But there are some who turn to terrorism and violence because of a humiliation that our policies cause. Issues in Palestine and Lebanon, which stem from our unwavering support of Israel, are easy enough to change in the future and have major impacts on hatred for the US and the West. There is also the issue in Iraq, where an apparent casual disregard for Iraqi civilians both in military battles with Saddam’s military at first and then insurgents, as well as our inability to prevent the looting, have also harmed our image.

So there are some serious steps we can take in the future. First of all, and I am appalled that Democrats didn’t stand up when it was happening (note, when I say Democrats, I mean the leadership), we need to control Israel. I am not the type that excuses Palestinian violence on Israel. But conversely, that doesn’t mean Israel should be given free reign to “defend itself” either. The war in Lebanon was disgusting and definitely unprovoked (kidnapping an Israeli soldier in that war isn’t as bad as it sounds – it is a common tactic, implicitly tolerated, to get Hezbollah soldiers out of prison through prisoner exchanges). I have never before understood why Muslims would think we value their lives so much less until I watched that war unfold. Countless innocent civilians were killed as we talked about Israel’s precision bombing. I do have to recognize though that we made the same claims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in one of those situations I still supported our attacks. It is a little hypocritical of me, and I don’t exactly know how to reconcile that, except to say the war in Afghanistan was justified and this was not.

The biggest tragedy, and foreign policy mistake, was that Lebanon is one of two legitimate examples of democracy in the Middle East (along with Turkey) that could serve as role models if only we nourished them. What this means is that we need to prevent, at all costs, any thing that would destabilize these countries. To protect Lebanon, we need to tell Israel not to invade and destroy half of Beirut (and we can tell them that, we give them more per capita aid than we do any other country).

While we are at it, we need to get much more invested in the situation in Palestine. President Clinton got involved and made big strides – which were quickly erased as soon as both sides realized they didn’t actually have to stick to their end of the bargain (Israel continued to build settlements and Palestine continued bombings). With the right amount of pressure we might again be able to make progress, while also showing that we care about the plight of the Palestinian people.

To ensure Turkey’s stability, we need to prevent civil war in Iraq because it would turn into a regional war. Turkey has long said that it will prevent its Kurdish population form seceding to join an independent Kurdistan, which is only a likely possibility if Iraq falls apart. While I understand the desire to make plans to leave Iraq, it bothers me that Democrats are in such a hurry to leave. I don’t like Bush’s mantra of staying the course, but I think patience is extremely wise. The violence right now is only a glimpse of what it could be. Shiite militias, those loyal to Iran as well as those loyal to Sadr, have been biding their time waiting for the US to leave. They have very strong military capabilities, and a premature departure could make them more willing to exercise that to gain power or even separation. The best thing we can do now is to continue to make it clear that we will leave soon, while not making a mad dash for the door without care to who runs the house.

Another major issue that is approaching us is Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While they claim they only want the technology, it is pretty clear that is a lie. And while everyone agrees that they shouldn’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons, we need to decide what to do if they don’t listen to us and how soon to do it. There are already plenty of conservatives who want to use missile strikes to take out their processing facilities. This worked on Saddam before the Bush invasion, but Iran can do much more damage to us than he could. While we are still in Iraq, Iran can choose to be more involved and create a much more violent situation there. They have real power over us, and we need to acknowledge that as we decide how to deal with them.

This is the main reason why I am disappointed over the Iraq debate. We need to be prepared to talk about containment or we risk being left out when the administration makes the decision to attack. Containment should be tried with Iran as best as possible. As part of this strategy, we should be willing to talk with them to see if they really want to be a partner with the West, but we should be ready to use sanctions.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a very difficult situation, and every time we think about calling a hearing to talk about pre-war intelligence we risk looking back when we need to be looking forward. One of the main obstacles to containment is that sanctions will not be as powerful. Iran is overflowing with oil revenue, which will make them better able to deal with sanctions. In the end, we might need to decide which is worse, a nuclear Iran, or the conflict that could ensue if we do launch an attack on them. After all, North Korea and China are both nuclear, and we didn’t risk attacking them.

After Iraq

While I strongly advocate for patience in Iraq, I realize that there will most likely be significant troop reductions over the next two to three years at the longest. This begs the question about what is to be done with our military in the future. Hopefully we have learned that nation-building (which Governor George W. Bush opposed when he was running for president in 2000) is much more difficult than we thought. But that doesn’t mean we should abandon it altogether. In fact, my main reason for opposing the War in Iraq was that I thought we needed to maintain troop presence in Afghanistan to help guide it to democracy. That may be a lost cause now, but I believe it would have worked had we stayed. After Iraq, maybe we will need to redeploy some troops to Afghanistan to see if we can get more control over the country (a bigger goal than just eliminating Bin Laden).

We also need to be prepared to use our military in other major conflicts around the world, something we are not capable of right now. If we were not tied up in Iraq, we might be able to be providing a much bigger presence in Lebanon, helping them disarm Hezbollah. More importantly, we could be in Darfur. I believe that Bush really does want to do the right think in Darfur. He has done more than Clinton did in Rwanda (which doesn’t say much) by actually talking about it as well as acknowledging that it is a genocide. But while we are in Iraq, we don’t have the troops to send there. Instead we have to rely on the other NATO countries or the UN to get around to sending troops. There is hope that they might go within a month or so, but they are long overdue.

When we have our troops freed up again, we can lead the way into these countries instead of waiting for the UN to move. To find precedent for this we need only look to Bosnia. One thing we need to do though is drop the rhetoric that we need UN support for any move we make. As the conservatives pointed out before Iraq, the UN does not always act in our best interests, or the best interests of people in the middle of a humanitarian crisis. For the right reasons, we should be willing to ignore the UN.

Right now, Sudan is saying they will not admit UN troops to their country. As of right now, the UN is unwilling to violate a nation’s sovereignty to protect people of that country. Kofi Annan might be willing to move in that direction, but we must not even hesitate. Sudan has no right to prevent us from getting involved, and the threat should be that if they try to stop us, we will do more than protect their citizens, but we will attack them and their gun-ships that have supported the janjaweed.

The more I learn about the many crises in the world, the more I think we need to get involved, militarily if necessary. While Donald Rumsfeld thinks our military needs to be smaller and more agile (which was a miserable failure in Iraq), I see the future of military conflict as peacekeeping missions which will require more troops not less. Some conflicts will clearly be in our best interest, as peacekeeping in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and even Palestine would be. But others won’t, like Darfur and other African conflicts. I hope that we can advocate for all of these though, because the countries we hope will grow out of their third-world status can only do so if security exists.

I focused this post on military foreign policy only because I think we need to have a strong position on what we want our military to do. In another post I hope to lay out what our aid and economic efforts should do. I hope that just because I am not including them in this post, I don’t give the impression that I think that is less important. In fact, as Truman rightly understood, improved economic status where people can raise a family in comfort will dramatically work to fight the embarrassment and anger that is often so easily turned on the West.

Fright Night

All I have to say is that New York State local courts are scary. Although it must be nice that you can get a job as a judge even if you don't have a high school diploma.

A Little More Impressed

I have been hating on Ned Lamont for quite a while now. I didn't like that he was a one issue candidate, I didn't like that he had no experience and hadn't seemed to give much thought about the issues until he began his campaign, and I was worried that he was more moderate conservative than Lieberman.

A recent article in the NY Times has helped with some of those worries, especially the one about him being a one-issue candidate. Although I don't agree with all of his proposals (especially what he says about education), it is nice to see him laying out some real policies.

Still, one of my concerns remains:

In style and substance, Mr. Lamont, as a newcomer to statewide campaigning and national politics, has both an asset and a liability.

Some voters are eager to chat at length when he fires a handful of questions back at them.

Others are wary of somebody who is still shaping his views and lacks government experience.

So what are some of his issues - he supports universal healthcare, rolling back some of the tax cuts, and he is opposed to earmarks. Isn't that cute? Another rookie congressman who says he will oppose pork. If he gets elected, I give him four years before he caves in and realizes he needs to pork to win reelection.

Let's Have Another Hearing

The latest report on the GWOT states that the War in Iraq has not made us safer. Okay, no surprise there, but it is good to hear it (allegedly) from an objective source. And this gives Democrats a great opportunity to move policy in the direction we choose. Let's hear what the leadership has to say:

Harry Reid of Nevada, said that “no election-year White House P.R. campaign can hide this truth — it is crystal clear that America’s security demands we change course in Iraq.”

Great! Good point. Okay, so what should we do? Hello? Harry are you still there? Okay, maybe there is more in his actual press release. Or not. Okay, so what does this mean? How do we change course? Do you mean we need to add troops? Maybe you mean immediate withdrawal? Or maybe a timetable - but how long?

The only piece of substance in there is a call for hearings on the conduct of the war. We have been in Iraq for four years. How is it possible that the Democratic leadership needs to conduct more hearings. We have had all the time in the world to understand what is going on and propose alternatives.

Maybe I am being unfair. Let's see if there is another press release. Yep, here we go. This one says that Bush and Cheney have no more credibility in the GWOT:

America needs a new direction, one that is tough and smart and gives Americans the real security they deserve.

Uh huh. That's true. But could you be a little more specific?

Seriously, as an open-minded voter, I am completely frustrated by my lack of options here. I can choose between the party lead by Bush and Cheney, who have mangled the war on terror, or a party that seems like it is going to tell the world exactly what it wants to do only after it gets into power. These vague messages about new directions and real security sound nice, but they don't actually lay out a real plan. The Democratic leadership has been bashing the War in Iraq and its influence in the Global War on Terror for a long time now, but have been utterly inept at broadcasting specific solutions. As I posted about before though, talking about a real solution might alienate some voters.

Simple Truths Part 1: Defending Cheney

One of my goals right now is to encourage real debate between liberals and conservatives. In order to do this, I feel that I have to make each side deal with some hard truths. One of those hard truths is that people in your party have problems and so I want to force people to criticize (or at least be willing to) people in their own party. The other, which will be the purpose of this post, is to help people understand that those on the other side of the spectrum are not mallicious or stupid, but have different (and possibly wrong) opinions about how the world does or should work.

This post will probably not make me any friends, and I would be crazy to think that anyone will actually believe me, but here it goes. Vice President Cheney, although very wrong about how the world should work, is not evil nor is he a liar (let me be clear, I am sure he has told lies - I am speficically talking about pre-war intelligence). The reason I bring this up is because I think it is very important that we start debating the reasons we went to war, under the assumption that those reasons were genuinely believed, in preparation for future debates and future conflicts.

First, let me start with some background. In 1992, after the first Gulf War, the Bush Sr. administration found that Saddam Hussein had a much more advanced weapons program than the CIA was aware of. In fact, he was at that time working towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. Those in the administration, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, were furious that the CIA was unaware of this. And this wasn't the first time the CIA had missed secret weapons programs (Israel, India, and Pakistan to name a few other examples).


This leads us to the present, and the current Iraq War. The Bush Jr. administration, lead in part by Cheney, went to war using some primary assumptions. Those assumptions were as follows:

1. Saddam Hussein is a threat to US security and containment will not work to deter that threat.

2. Invading Iraq will make us safer in the Global War on Terrorism.

3. It will be easy to establish a democracy in Iraq and therefore we don't need to plan for it.

I believe that the administration did believe these assumptions. Take assumption number one; based on the history I outlined, I think it is easy to see why someone would believe that Saddam was a threat, even if the CIA's analysis wasn't showing it. Believing this as he did, Vice President Cheney decided to mine the intelligence information on his own, not because he wanted to lie to the American people, but because he didn't trust the CIA. Even though he was wrong in his assumption, it would be wrong to think that he did this out of malice. The CIA has to analyze lots of information from many different sources who can all be saying contradictory things. Since their decisions can have a big impact on future conflicts, it is understandable that they would be cautious in their analysis. At the same time, I can understand why, based on history, that people would be frustrated with their caution.

I bet there are many people right now asking where I am going with this. Well, the reason I felt compelled to defend Cheney a little bit is because I think when we call him a liar, we walk away from important issues that need to be debated. I think we can easily show that each of their assumptions was wrong, and if we do we might be able to prevent them from using those assumptions again. Either way, we seriously need to debate these issues.

One very important issue is whether we trust the CIA's analysis, and related to that, how much funding do they need to do the type of analysis that we would trust. Conservatives do not trust the CIA, and this can be seen in some recent criticism about the Iranian weapons program. If we trust the CIA, we need to be ready to defend them.

Another issue is whether this made us safer in the Global War on Terrorism? I think it is obvious now, as it should have been then to people like Harry Ried, John Kerry, and John Edwards, that it wouldn't have made us safer. A war that is seen as illegitimate by the rest of the world, especially by the Middle East, will only create more terrorists. Also, Iraq was not as big of a threat for supporting terrorism as other countries were / are. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia and Sudan all have issues either supporting terrorism or preventing it from growing within their countries. Dealing with these issues would have made us much safer than invading Iraq, and we need to stress that more than anything right now.

Also, there is little doubt that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. So as this debate heats up, we cannot fall back on the same old line about Cheney being a liar. The information about Iran is very clear, and when the next debate comes up, we need to be prepared to dicuss the merits of containment, sanctions, and whether we choose to support CIA analysis. Democrats need to start laying the groundwork for these issues, using Iraq as our starting point. If we can do this, we have a much better chance of shaping future foreign policy debates. If not, we risk allowing the Republicans to control foreign policy, which means accepting all of the consequences that entails.