Centerfield

In Search of a Credible Wartime Leader

I've been pretty critical of the president here, in this space, and more generally in all the snippy little comments I make about his Iraq policies or his approach to foreign policy in general.

What happens, though, when others, from the opposite side of the aisle, start offering plans of their own? A bunch of leading Democrats have been forced to offer specific and comprehensive proposals on Iraq. You can't run for president in the middle of a war without a plan. And each candidate is having to respond to specific events and choices made in the course of this war.

Which makes it all very interesting. It seems an especially effective measure of the strength and integrity of these candidates. Responding to wartime events -- expressing an opinion regarding choices that are made which will affect the lives of our young men and women in uniform -- is a pretty decent test of the kind of leader you will become.

I was impressed, in the period immediately following the combat phase of the war, with the level of commitment this field brought to the rebuilding effort. All the major candidates seemed to understand that opposing the war did not translate into opposing the rebuilding effort.

Defeating and removing a regime gives you all the basic responsibilities for security and reconstruction. If you broke it, you bought it. The strongest anti-war candidates, like Dean, were posting detailed reconstruction plans to their websites and talking about our "sacred trust" in Iraq and our commitment to see it through.

In hindsight, though, there's a whiff of politics here. Talking about our commitment level is one way of saying "look what the president has gotten us into". It's also a way of pointing out how undercommitted the administration was -- how inadequate our troop levels were and how unprepared we were for the immediate postwar environment.

Howard Dean advocated strongly -- passionately -- for sending more troops to Iraq. Remember that?

There seems quite a contrast between these early views and the recent vogue of minimizing our involvement.

For example, the decision by 7 of these 9 candidates to oppose the president's $87 billion reconstruction package. Yes, it's a lot of money, and yes, the president is playing politics with this request -- asking for a lot now in an effort to avoid having to ask for more next year, in the heat of the election.

You can make other arguments regarding this $87 billion. And the Democrats do -- they did last night in the debate. Suppose you oppose the plan as leverage -- as a way of forcing the president to choose a more reasonable policy in Iraq? Aren't you doing the right thing for your country then?

Not likely. The real-world consequences of defeating the president's reconstruction funds are quite different. It would lead, most likely, to a further alienation with the international community -- fewer countries supporting us in the recent UN vote, less reconstruction money at the donor conference, and a sudden deepening of worldwide skepticism regarding our commitment to Iraq.

Beating Bush out of his $87 billion is not likely to lead to an international renaissance on Iraq -- bringing us together in a new era of shared responsibility. If that's the Democratic vision on Iraq (and it is), they chose a grossly inadequate tool. In fact, they took a big step in the other direction.

I'm not inclined to credit the 7 of 9 Democrats who took this position with any sort of reasonable policy on Iraq.

They're doing something politically viable. It gets applause lines all night long, and fits quite nicely with recent public opinion polls showing opposition to the $87 billion reconstruction package.

It's politically attractive, but not good for the country. Which makes it a nice test of a candidate's judgment, strength, and willingness to lead.

Posted by William Swann at October 27, 2003 10:18 AM