A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
December 15, 2003ClarityWe've had somewhat awkward discussions here regarding Howard Dean's views on foreign policy. A few bloggers -- myself certainly included -- have criticized his views rather pointedly. The discussions are awkward because they're based on partial information. Most of us can see in it what we want to see. Today Dean gave a detailed foreign policy address. An important event for him because the media is so focused on the capture of Saddam and will naturally include Dean's views in the wall-to-wall coverage of that event. It's an opportunity to make an impression with a segment of the electorate. Dean said a lot of good things today -- pointing out things that very much need to be said. We need to rebuild global alliances and partnerships, improve intelligence gathering, and secure the vulnerable targets and weapons we know exist at home and abroad. Dean -- and every Democrat -- needs to say this. They're absolutely right. A certain amount of additional clarity came for me, however, in a few of Dean's statements. The following, for example, is the part that ran tonight on the PBS News Hour: As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the aftermath of the administration's war to oust him. There is the continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for American goals.The capture of Saddam has not made America safer. Now, you could make an argument to that effect if you're looking at the issue of whether we should have gone to war in the first place. It's possible that we're not safer today than we would have been had we chosen not to go to war at all. The immediate issue is undeniable though, isn't it? We're at war in Iraq, and our efforts to win a war (and, I might add, deny a potential base to the terrorists) are improved at least somewhat after capturing Saddam. They may be improved a little, or they may be improved a lot. We don't know yet. On the whole, though, America is probably a bit safer today than this time last week. We've taken a step in the direction of success in Iraq. Dean's heart is really not much in this Iraq thing. He just hasn't managed to fully grasp the shift in circumstances that occurred when we went to war. Whether right or wrong, once in the war our interests dramatically shifted to a need to win. The war on terror is deeply entangled with that issue, whether it was before the war or not. Dean's attitude was hinted at, a bit, in his initial public statement Sunday following the capture of Saddam, which included the following: Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty. The administration has already accelerated that timetable. It's six months away. I don't suppose Dean wants to do it faster, but I wonder if doing it any slower would be acceptable to him, if we were to continue to run into the kind of problems that make a quick transition unwise. I think I have a better grasp on Dean's foreign policy now. It doesn't reflect the kind of sober realism we surely could use these days. Posted by William Swann at December 15, 2003 08:49 PMComments
Overall, I think Dean's address is pretty good. But that line is makes no sense, and it shows Dean's stubborn streak. As James Taranto wrote today http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004438 Dean's assertion is impossible to support rationally. If you believe, as we do, that liberating Iraq was vital to American national security, then obviously Saddam's capture has made America safer. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the left-wing critique is correct: Iraq is a "distraction," diverting troops, resources and attention from the war against al Qaeda.Posted by: rickheller at December 16, 2003 03:07 PM Stubborn, yes. It seems to me the purpose and effect of his speech would be much greater had he simply cut that line. He advertised this speech as an event that would illustrate he's in the mainstream of our foreign policy tradition. But all the networks (and NPR this morning) were running that one exerpt that ended with the line about Saddam's capture not making us safer. I'm not sure he realized how discordant that was. We're in the middle of what the vast majority of Americans will view as a real milestone and an achievement in its own right -- and Dean insists, beyond all logic, that it doesn't make us safer. Weird. I would also mention that Lieberman is making even more of this now. He's taking on Dean directly, and apparently views this as a route to emerging as the Dean alternative. I'm not sure he can pull it off, at this point. And, as you know, I've become willing to go a different direction personally if it gives us a better chance. It's all a bit muddled with these latest developments. I'll be curious in seeing what the new polls say, to kind of gauge where we are. Posted by: William Swann at December 16, 2003 03:58 PMIt's bad enough that sound bites reduce complexity; it's worse when they distort meaning--when a single line that may be at variance with the rest of a speech comes to represent a speech. Still, if Dean had any real centrists around him, maybe one of them could have objected to that line going into a speech intending to cast Dean as a centrist. Posted by: rickheller at December 16, 2003 04:31 PMDid Saddam look like he's been coordinating the opposition? He looked like someone who had been living in little holes in the ground, to me. So how does his capture help? Perhaps, his capture will remove a symbol that some of the guerillas believe in. But it's also possible that some elements resisting the US will fight harder now, knowing that Saddam can't make a comeback. In the meantime, the attacks continue. So, it's not clear what effect his capture will have in the long run, but in the short run, we are not safer. Why is this obvious statement controversial? Posted by: Mithras at December 16, 2003 04:47 PMBut the capture of Saddam has not made America safer. What's the big deal? This statement is literally true. A few days ago Hussein was hiding in a hole; now he's in custody. I don't see that that American homeland was safer on Sunday than it was on Saturday. The President made the same point when he announced the capture of Saddam -- Iraq (and the world) is still a dangerous place. I don't think Dean meant anything more than that. Posted by: Oberon at December 16, 2003 05:03 PMAmerica is at war, guys. We're figting a war every day. We just captured the principle figurehead for a significant faction of the forces we're fighting. This may be a small step in the direction of prevailing over there. It may be a large step. Who knows, at this point? It is clearly a step in the direction we're trying to go, though. Dean himself has echoed the widely-expressed view that failure in Iraq could provide the terrorist with new bases to attack us from. Thus, quite obviously, we're a little safer over here if things go well over there, and a little more at risk if they don't. What Dean said was just plain illogical. Not to mention discordant with what the bulk of Americans are feeling during these first couple days when the media is focusing intently on this story. Posted by: William Swann at December 16, 2003 05:34 PMSaddam was never a threat to America. Certainly a threat to his own people, and possibly to the people of Iran and Kuwait but not America. Capturing him lessened the threat possibly a smidge (if that much) to our soldiers on the ground, but they wouldn't be in the mess they are in if we didn't attack Iraq in the first place. I would make the argument that devoting so many resources to toppling Hussein and capturing him has made us much less safe - because the infrastructure of Al Qaeda remains in place, and we don't do everything possible to cut off their funds from the Saudis. Furthermore, our failure to plan in Iraq let whatever nuclear material Saddam may or may not have evaporate into thin air while we made a mad dash to secure the oil wells. Those materials being on the loose certainly doesn't fit my definition of American safety. We are most certainly at war, and the President is crippling our ability and focus to fight it. Posted by: Oliver at December 16, 2003 07:20 PMSaddam was never a threat to America. Not exactly. Saddam became a threat to America after we invaded. There's a lot of fedayeen fighting in his name, and they're making common cause with terrorists. So if they win, again, Iraq becomes a base for terrorism, which most certainly can effect us. Capturing him lessened the threat possibly a smidge (if that much) to our soldiers on the ground, but they wouldn't be in the mess they are in if we didn't attack Iraq in the first place. We're not debating the original issue of the war, which I agreed with you on. Also, you don't know if capturing him lessened the danger "a smidge" or more. Neither does Dean. But he claims he does. I would make the argument that devoting so many resources to toppling Hussein and capturing him has made us much less safe - because the infrastructure of Al Qaeda remains in place, and we don't do everything possible to cut off their funds from the Saudis. You might be right if we're looking at the original issue of the war. The actual situation we face, however, is one where we're already there and we're the occupying power. We have a strong interest in making the situation turn out positively, if possible. If you were making strategy in Iraq today, I suspect you'd dedicate resources to finding Saddam. At a minimum, you know the place he holds in the mind of Iraqi's after endless decades of brutal rule. A positive future is harder to envision when you don't know where that guy is. And, honestly, we as a nation have fought two wars against this guy -- our biggest two wars of the past 20 years. It's hard to argue that removing him decisively from the current picture doesn't make us safer. I agree with a good number of the points your making. I'm a rather bitter opponent of the president's foreign policy. I just think Dean, in this case, is mixing up his feelings about the president's mistakes with our real national interests. It's frustrating when pursuing our real interests today involves taking on the poorly executed mission of your political opponent. But that's reality. Posted by: William Swann at December 16, 2003 08:43 PMNot exactly. Saddam became a threat to America after we invaded. If you were making strategy in Iraq today, I suspect you'd dedicate resources to finding Saddam. we as a nation have fought two wars against this guy -- our biggest two wars of the past 20 years. It's hard to argue that removing him decisively from the current picture doesn't make us safer If I believed for a second Bush was interested in really enforcing a global democracy, I would be dancing in the streets. But the prevailing attitude is "we got Saddam, now lets get the hell out of Iraq before next November - consequences be damned". That makes us less safe. Posted by: Oliver at December 16, 2003 10:22 PMAccording to The American Prospect
Apparently, this is a case where Dean's ad libbing stepped on his message. His aides must have cringed. Posted by: rickheller at December 17, 2003 12:17 AM I don't get why people take such a comment out of context. I honestly think that alot of the people who are doing that are looking to make another democratic candidate get the spot. Really, we aren't any safer than we were before the war in Iraq. We're actually more in danger because we're estranging our allies and enraging more of the middle east. Are we safer with Saddam captured? Let's keep track of the squabbles in Iraq and how many men die...even just for a month or so to see if it averages out with before or if there's a drastic decline. I honestly think that the capture of Saddam will make no difference...maybe just to make guerillas to kill more knowing that their leader won't be coming back into power? I honestly feel that alot of the stances in the world will change if a new president comes into office just because it won't be Bush and the people will automatically like that person better because he opposed Bush. Posted by: Jon the Villain at December 17, 2003 02:41 AMTo me, the problem is that even if the point Dean makes is arguable, it suggests a stubbornness and a tin ear, and a lack of savvy. My opinion is that the point is at best arguable. I don't see a whole lot to be gained in joining the left-right food fight over what the capture of Hussein means. Surely it has symbolic meaning for both Iraqis and Americans. It may make Iraqis feel safer and may discourage some opposition elements. But it's far from a guarantee of success in Iraq, and does little or nothing to impact Al Queda. But it's good news, No? So if Dean has any sense at all, why would he provide a "turd in the punchbowl" quote to give lots of voters a reason to dislike him? I hope this DOES give a boost to Lieberman, I could see myself supporting him, as I know where he stands. Dean says so many things that the sense I get is that what he primarily stands for is getting elected. Posted by: bk at December 17, 2003 08:43 AMNow that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty. The grinding sound you hear is the sound of Howard Dean moving the goalposts. The issue is no longer Saddam Hussein. The issue is no longer whether or not he was "in control" when we captured him. The issue isn't really even whether or not we are immediately safer the day after we got him. The issue is Iraqi sovereignty -- how soon will they achieve it, what level of quality will it possess, how much will it have cost us to help them get it, will the sovereign Iraqi people be an ally, etc. etc. In 2000, George Bush couldn't criticize the preceding 6-8 years of economic boom. Instead, he questioned what the administration had chosen to do with it. He moved the goal posts. Social Security? Still broken. Medicare? Still broken. "They had their chance. They didn't fix it. We will." Game. Set. Match. I wish I could take credit for this analysis; Will Saletan has already written about it. I think it is spot-on. This year Howard Dean would be smart to move the goal posts. Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty. This year George W. Bush would be smart not to underestimate how that message might resonate with the voters. Posted by: Ara Rubyan at December 19, 2003 04:27 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
