Wide Rift Within the Democratic Party on Foreign Policy

[Frodo]

The choice

As Democrats struggle to shape a post-9/11 foreign policy, two defining moments in their history, the dawn of the Cold War and the '60s antiwar movement, present stark alternatives -- and reflect a lasting rift within the party

By David Greenberg  |  May 21, 2006

EARLIER THIS MONTH, two contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination stood together to stop what they saw as a dangerous drift in their party's stance on national security. At the National Press Club on May 9, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh summoned Democrats to dig in for ''what will in all likelihood be a generation-long struggle against jihadism and radical, suicidal terror." Former Virginia governor Mark Warner agreed that his partymates had to refute Karl Rove's taunt that they cling to a ''pre-9/11 worldview" by championing their own plans to fight al Qaeda. Though neither man named names, they implicitly chided their party's growing antiwar faction for railing against Bush's record without offering a vision of how to protect America.

The vision Bayh and Warner offered is one being heard increasingly from a host of younger journalists and policy mavens-from newly formed groups like the Truman National Security Project and the Foreign Policy Leadership Council to New Republic editor-at-large Peter Beinart, the author of a much-discussed new manifesto. It's an approach that repudiates the Democrats' post-Vietnam reluctance to use military power. Yet it also views armed force as part of an arsenal of tools-including economic development, robust alliances, and international law and institutions-that the US, as the world's de facto leader, must be ready to employ.

Such a vision would seem quite appealing, especially in a global age when there's no drawbridge for America to pull up. Yet no sooner had reports of Bayh and Warner's remarks appeared than they-and their way of thinking-came under fire from the bloggers and pundits whose influence among party activists they were seeking to curb. Across the Web, the politicians and their ilk were slammed as ''warmongers," ''Vichy Democrats," and ''enablers" of a Republican regime. And such attacks are nothing new. For months the left has been belittling the thinking of the internationalists, scoffing at how many of them backed Bush's invasion of Iraq, with The Nation-the flagship magazine of the antiwar faction-refusing to support any Democratic office-seeker who won't seek a speedy pullout.

Beneath this internecine party warfare lies a fundamental, and possibly debilitating, ideological divide. Liberals, who tend to view terrorism as the chief foreign policy concern, have been trying to revive the philosophy of internationalism-the belief that US intervention abroad can be noble in intent and beneficial in its results. Leftists, on the other hand, viewing the Iraq War as the most urgent problem, more often subscribe to a philosophy that might be called anti-imperialism-the belief that US intervention abroad is typically avaricious in intent and malign in its results.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice straw man, but the war in Iraq has nothing to do with stopping terrorism.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Think beyond Iraq.  You are as fixated on the war as you are on President Bush.   

Well, in Afganistan, Bush let Osama get away at Tora Bora. Of course you warmongers don't seem to care.

[opebo]

Obviously the non-military aspect of 'liberal internationalist' imperialism - such as the UN - has been fairly beneficial for the US and the interests of at least its elite.   When this philosophy of international relations has been used to engage in aggressive wars - such as Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc., its utility has been very poor.  

I voted that I am a 'leftist anti-imperialist', but I don't think that fits pefectly.  I would prefer the appellation 'McGovern Democrat'.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously the non-military aspect of 'liberal internationalist' imperialism - such as the UN - has been fairly beneficial for the US and the interests of at least its elite.   When this philosophy of international relations has been used to engage in aggressive wars - such as Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc., its utility has been very poor. 

I voted that I am a 'leftist anti-imperialist', but I don't think that fits pefectly.  I would prefer the appellation 'McGovern Democrat'.

McGovern is more of a war hero than any of the warmongers.
http://www.law.uc.edu/current/auschwitz050418/index.html

[Frodo]

Think beyond Iraq.  You are as fixated on the war as you are on President Bush.   

Well, in Afganistan, Bush let Osama get away at Tora Bora. Of course you warmongers don't seem to care.

You, unsurprisingly, missed the point of my comment which was: do you on the left have any plan or strategy (beyond pontificating endlessly on Iraq, Afghanistan, and President Bush) on how to battle terrorism for the next generation?  If so, what is it?  This question assumes, of course, that you leftists have the willingness and desire to do whatever it takes to defend this country from those who seek to do it harm........   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Think beyond Iraq.  You are as fixated on the war as you are on President Bush.   

Well, in Afganistan, Bush let Osama get away at Tora Bora. Of course you warmongers don't seem to care.

You, unsurprisingly, missed the point of my comment which was: do you on the left have any plan or strategy on how to battle terrorism for the next generation?  This question assumes, of course, that you leftists have the willingness and desire to do whatever it takes to defend this country from those who seek to do it harm........   

Yes, first off

1. Pay atttention to memos titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
2.When you have Osama cornered, don't fight some low level proxy battle like Bush did. If we can afford 200,000 troops for Iraq, we could have afforded a few thousand there.
3. Don't get the whole world pissed off at us. Fighting terrorism works much better when you have the hearts of most individuals. After 9/11, French newspapers ran headlines: "We are all Americans now", and sent a bunch of troops to Afganistan. For some reason we decided to bash France for the next few years.

You are the ones who are soft on fighting terrorism. You enabled an adminstration ignored every pre-9/11 threat, and let Osama get away. Before 9/11, an FBI investigator actually concluded that the "20th hijacker" wanted to fly a plane into the WTC. The signs were all there. But no, this lousy President that you have propped up was on his month long vacation, and he didn't want to piss off his friends in Saudi Arabia.

[opebo]

Obviously the non-military aspect of 'liberal internationalist' imperialism - such as the UN - has been fairly beneficial for the US and the interests of at least its elite.   When this philosophy of international relations has been used to engage in aggressive wars - such as Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc., its utility has been very poor. 

I voted that I am a 'leftist anti-imperialist', but I don't think that fits pefectly.  I would prefer the appellation 'McGovern Democrat'.

McGovern is more of a war hero than any of the warmongers.
http://www.law.uc.edu/current/auschwitz050418/index.html

I have no doubt about that.  The man was very admirable in many ways.  However I do believe he questioned america's empire more than any other candidate for president.  I suppose Jimmy Carter came closest during his presidency to reducing imperialism, as far as actual elected leaders.. and he has certainly spoken out against it since.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

These warmongers don't have a clue. If you want a moderate Democrat who has a clue, try Bob Graham. He voted against the Iraq war BECAUSE it would distract from the war on terror.

[Gustaf]

The war on Iraq was the right thing to do for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism. We need the US to police the world untill we can come up with a better solution so I voted liberal internationalist.

[adam]

As far as I am concerned, anyone who says "no war ever" or "war always" are both fools. I support a war based on the intentions. For example,

I would have supported WWII. Fasist regime dominating Europe, killing off millions of people, and THEN trying to set up a movement in a America. Obvious threat, take em' out as quickly as possible.

The War in Iraq however had no connection to 9/11 or the Jihad that threatened our people or national intrests. We should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, and kicked the nessecary ass. Unfortunately, our administration let al-Quaida get away. That is the biggest tradgisty of the fight against terrorism...despite the acts of 9/11, our president and our department of defense let our attackers get away.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as I am concerned, anyone who says "no war ever" or "war always" are both fools. I support a war based on the intentions. For example,

I would have supported WWII. Fasist regime dominating Europe, killing off millions of people, and THEN trying to set up a movement in a America. Obvious threat, take em' out as quickly as possible.

The War in Iraq however had no connection to 9/11 or the Jihad that threatened our people or national intrests. We should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, and kicked the nessecary ass. Unfortunately, our administration let al-Quaida get away. That is the biggest tradgisty of the fight against terrorism...despite the acts of 9/11, our president and our department of defense let our attackers get away.

"No war ever" is a straw man.

[Alcon]

As far as I am concerned, anyone who says "no war ever" or "war always" are both fools. I support a war based on the intentions. For example,

I would have supported WWII. Fasist regime dominating Europe, killing off millions of people, and THEN trying to set up a movement in a America. Obvious threat, take em' out as quickly as possible.

The War in Iraq however had no connection to 9/11 or the Jihad that threatened our people or national intrests. We should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, and kicked the nessecary ass. Unfortunately, our administration let al-Quaida get away. That is the biggest tradgisty of the fight against terrorism...despite the acts of 9/11, our president and our department of defense let our attackers get away.

"No war ever" is a straw man.

How?

He was saying that he disagrees with "no war ever" sentimentality - which does exist.  He never attacked it as being a majority opinion or as being a negative reflection of leftist foreign policy, which would have been a strawman.  This is definitely not.

[minionofmidas]

You, unsurprisingly, missed the point of my comment which was: do you on the left have any plan or strategy (beyond pontificating endlessly on Iraq, Afghanistan, and President Bush) on how to battle terrorism for the next generation?  If so, what is it?  This question assumes, of course, that you leftists have the willingness and desire to do whatever it takes to defend this country from those who seek to do it harm........   

Just goes to show how big that rift really is .... as the entire concept that stands behind this question is fatally misguided.

"How to battle terrorism for the next generation"? What's that supposed to mean? What's "terrorism for the next generation"?
As to "battling terrorism", do you mean "battling anybody with a strategy of violence aimed at striking terror in people's hearts"? Or "battling any non-governmental group with such a strategy, fighting against the United States"? Or are you further reducing the scope to Wahhabite Fundamentalist non-governmental terrorists? Or even just to those terrorists currently active?
Obviously the answers would be wholly different ones. The last aim might even conceivably be achieved by ways of military action and the creation of a concentration camp in Cuba, the others obviously not.

"To do whatever it takes" ... of course not. That's a euphemism for murder, deceit, and the abolution or undermining of democracy. Think about it - "whatever it takes", without any regards to whether what you're throwing out of the window might be more important, or whether what you're doing might be evil.
Which sort of renders the whole "those who seek to do it harm" point moot... but I'll try and address that anyways. First lesson in politics: Try to understand your enemy. Any effort made without that first step is pretty much doomed anyways. (And I'm currently not, myself, doing nearly enough of that as re your position.) Why the hell would anyone want to do Americans harm?

[Boris]

I agree 100%, Lewis. We can kill people like bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi, but someone will always pop up in their place, at least until we figure out the "why" aspect to terrorism.

In my opinion, the War on Terrorism is more of a war on an ideology. The War must be balanced with both effective military strikes and addressing the problem of terrorism. Currently, the Iraq War has destroyed both of those things, as has Bush's ineptitude in Afghanistan. We can kill all the terrorists we want to, but more will keep popping up. 

I honestly don't quite know why terrorism exists or the driving forces behind it, so I can't really address the issue on how to defeat its ideology. However, militarily, I believe NATO is the key. When the United States teams up with our Western European allies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, not crap like Poland and Bulgaria), we are essentially invincible. The Iraq War has destroyed relations with these nations, but nevertheless, we share many things in common. I strongly believe that the 9/11 attacks were not just an attack on the United States; they were also an attack on Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Norway, etc. Likewise, the same applies to the Madrid and London bombings.

But alas, when dealing with any issue about terrorism, we must first deal with Iraq (due to the amount of resources it's consuming) Iraq may not have been part of the War on Terror in 2003, but, thanks to Dubya's incompetence, it sure as hell is now. Withdrawing from Iraq won't work, nor will setting a time table. Anyone who thinks staying the course will work is on LSD and Shrooms. Unfortunately, I see Iraq as a lose-lose situation, and with that, the War on Terror also translates into a similar result.

[Nym90]

I'm definitely a liberal internationalist.

[Nym90]

I agree 100%, Lewis. We can kill people like bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi, but someone will always pop up in their place, at least until we figure out the "why" aspect to terrorism.

In my opinion, the War on Terrorism is more of a war on an ideology. The War must be balanced with both effective military strikes and addressing the problem of terrorism. Currently, the Iraq War has destroyed both of those things, as has Bush's ineptitude in Afghanistan. We can kill all the terrorists we want to, but more will keep popping up. 

I honestly don't quite know why terrorism exists or the driving forces behind it, so I can't really address the issue on how to defeat its ideology. However, militarily, I believe NATO is the key. When the United States teams up with our Western European allies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, not crap like Poland and Bulgaria), we are essentially invincible. The Iraq War has destroyed relations with these nations, but nevertheless, we share many things in common. I strongly believe that the 9/11 attacks were not just an attack on the United States; they were also an attack on Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Norway, etc. Likewise, the same applies to the Madrid and London bombings.

But alas, when dealing with any issue about terrorism, we must first deal with Iraq (due to the amount of resources it's consuming) Iraq may not have been part of the War on Terror in 2003, but, thanks to Dubya's incompetence, it sure as hell is now. Withdrawing from Iraq won't work, nor will setting a time table. Anyone who thinks staying the course will work is on LSD and Shrooms. Unfortunately, I see Iraq as a lose-lose situation, and with that, the War on Terror also translates into a similar result.

Great post. I agree with everything you have said here. I was going to post my own statement of my beliefs on this topic but this sums it up as well as or better than I could have.

[Frodo]

You, unsurprisingly, missed the point of my comment which was: do you on the left have any plan or strategy (beyond pontificating endlessly on Iraq, Afghanistan, and President Bush) on how to battle terrorism for the next generation?  If so, what is it?  This question assumes, of course, that you leftists have the willingness and desire to do whatever it takes to defend this country from those who seek to do it harm........   

Just goes to show how big that rift really is .... as the entire concept that stands behind this question is fatally misguided.

From the standpoint of a European who refuses to recognize the potential threat that alienated Muslim immigrants pose in his native country, it is unsurprising that you would fail to fully recognize the threat that terrorism poses.  I am sure though that when terrorists make strikes on either Berlin or Frankfurt as they did in London and Madrid, you will come to your senses. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It means that we (meaning those of us in what is commonly referred to as the 'Western world') should recognize that terrorist organizations like al Qaeda are in this struggle for the long-haul, and so should we. 'For the next generation' is simply a euphemism and should not be taken literally, for in all likelihood this conflict will likely last longer than that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are referring primarily to those terrorist groups that advocate using violence on the United States and its allies to advance their cause of recreating an Islamic caliphate throughout the Islamic world under the guidance of Wahhabite fundamentalism.  And it is especially criminal that certain leftists would denigrate the threat that Al Qaeda poses, and suggest that we have more to fear from the Bush administration -which is ridiculous.     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not going to go through this civil liberties vs. national security debate again.  I will say only this though -we had best do what we can now to prevent a terrorist attack on American soil at all costs, for what civil liberties we have left will most definitely be gone if we relax our vigilance, and this debate will then be merely academic.  That includes implementing all the recommendations by the 9/11 commission.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because we are the number one superpower, and no matter what we do someone will always hate us and seek to hurt us.  It is a fact of life that every pre-eminent power from Athens and Rome to the present has dealt with. 

[Democratic Hawk]

Liberal internationalist (or interventionist, in my case) but I don't really consider myself liberal on foreign policy at all

Dave

[Nym90]

Liberal internationalist (or interventionist, in my case) but I don't really consider myself liberal on foreign policy at all

Dave

Well you wouldn't be as the term is defined today (although I've always maintained that the vast majority of liberals don't support what conservatives like to call liberal foreign policy, but that's for a different thread).

But as the article defines it, you certainly would be. Traditionally liberal foreign policy supported the idea that the United States has a moral obligation to make the world a better place, while conservative foreign policy traditionally was more focused on the idea that we shouldn't care about anyone else and focus on ourselves.

But the article does make a good point, in that there are essentially two very different types of isolationsists; those who view "Americanization" of the world as doing more bad than good, and the far more common type, which, as I mentioned, basically don't give a damn about what goes on outside of our borders.

Likewise, interventionists can be both those who view the United States as a force for good in the world, or those who want to make the rest of the world more like us so as to better serve our interests.

[adam]

As far as I am concerned, anyone who says "no war ever" or "war always" are both fools. I support a war based on the intentions. For example,

I would have supported WWII. Fasist regime dominating Europe, killing off millions of people, and THEN trying to set up a movement in a America. Obvious threat, take em' out as quickly as possible.

The War in Iraq however had no connection to 9/11 or the Jihad that threatened our people or national intrests. We should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, and kicked the nessecary ass. Unfortunately, our administration let al-Quaida get away. That is the biggest tradgisty of the fight against terrorism...despite the acts of 9/11, our president and our department of defense let our attackers get away.

"No war ever" is a straw man.

How?

He was saying that he disagrees with "no war ever" sentimentality - which does exist.  He never attacked it as being a majority opinion or as being a negative reflection of leftist foreign policy, which would have been a strawman.  This is definitely not.

What he said.

[The Duke]

I honestly don't quite know why terrorism exists or the driving forces behind it, so I can't really address the issue on how to defeat its ideology. However, militarily, I believe NATO is the key. When the United States teams up with our Western European allies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, not crap like Poland and Bulgaria), we are essentially invincible. The Iraq War has destroyed relations with these nations, but nevertheless, we share many things in common. I strongly believe that the 9/11 attacks were not just an attack on the United States; they were also an attack on Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Norway, etc. Likewise, the same applies to the Madrid and London bombings.

NATO is weak.  Going without NATO is addition by subtraction.  Look back at the Kosovo campaign and you will se what I mean.  Having to get the approval of 19 world leaders before any decision was made on how to manage the war crippled our efforts.  Allies are overrated.

[minionofmidas]

You, unsurprisingly, missed the point of my comment which was: do you on the left have any plan or strategy (beyond pontificating endlessly on Iraq, Afghanistan, and President Bush) on how to battle terrorism for the next generation?  If so, what is it?  This question assumes, of course, that you leftists have the willingness and desire to do whatever it takes to defend this country from those who seek to do it harm........   

Just goes to show how big that rift really is .... as the entire concept that stands behind this question is fatally misguided.

From the standpoint of a European who refuses to recognize the potential threat that alienated Muslim immigrants pose in his native country, it is unsurprising that you would fail to fully recognize the threat that terrorism poses.  I am sure though that when terrorists make strikes on either Berlin or Frankfurt as they did in London and Madrid, you will come to your senses. 

Yes - I will continue to refuse to blame a sixth of the world's population for the crimes of a handful - and I will be extremely wary of those in this part of the world homicidal enough to do so. Especially seeing as I got Muslim friends and all that.

It certainly does have a psychological impact though when something terrible happens in a place you know well, that you got fond memories of; on your hometurf as it were - I noticed that during the recent (quite harmless by comparison) attack on the Jami Masjid in Delhi, one of my favorite buildings in the world. But it's not one you should give in to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are referring primarily to those terrorist groups that advocate using violence on the United States and its allies to advance their cause of recreating an Islamic caliphate throughout the Islamic world under the guidance of Wahhabite fundamentalism.  [/quote] So terror is not actually one of your concerns.
Thanks, that's all I wanted to hear when I wrote that part.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well in a literal sense that's actually true - you personally are immensely more likely to be harmed by the Bush administration than Al Qaeda (I'm not sure who the "we" in your post is, unless your account is used by two people who composed this post together ).
In the normal sense of the words though, that suggestion is indeed ridiculous. Notice that I didn't make it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not going to go through this civil liberties vs. national security debate again.  I will say only this though -we had best do what we can now to prevent a terrorist attack on American soil at all costs, for what civil liberties we have left will most definitely be gone if we relax our vigilance, and this debate will then be merely academic.  That includes implementing all the recommendations by the 9/11 commission.   [/quote]How is one other terrorist attack - bad as it would be - going to possibly affect "what civil liberties we have left" - let alone "most definitely"?
Al Qaeda has no intention of subjugating the US as far as I'm aware, and even if they did it'd just show how delusional they are (not that I'd need any further proof of that.) but merely ("merely"? lol actually) of ending US hegemony over Islamic territory - or what they consider Islamic territory (cough Israel. cough Western Europe, actually, if you ask a Western European Islamic cleric, though not usually an Arabic one. Of course Islamic territory in the theological sense just means there's a well established Islamic community there.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because we are the number one superpower, and no matter what we do someone will always hate us and seek to hurt us.  It is a fact of life that every pre-eminent power from Athens and Rome to the present has dealt with. 
[/quote]Ah, Rome. The vilest motherfucker in earth history. Rome well deserved all the hate it got and something extra, you know that? Believe you me, you don't want to take Rome as your role model, because if you do, that'd really be the end to whatever civil liberties you got left.



Haven't addressed the chief difference yet, btw. The chief difference is that you really seem only to care about what's done to "the United States and their allies". The rest of the world's populace seems to have been created for GI target practice. Now that's just plain sick. Maybe it's a wrong impression though, I sure hope it is...

[Boris]

I honestly don't quite know why terrorism exists or the driving forces behind it, so I can't really address the issue on how to defeat its ideology. However, militarily, I believe NATO is the key. When the United States teams up with our Western European allies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, not crap like Poland and Bulgaria), we are essentially invincible. The Iraq War has destroyed relations with these nations, but nevertheless, we share many things in common. I strongly believe that the 9/11 attacks were not just an attack on the United States; they were also an attack on Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Norway, etc. Likewise, the same applies to the Madrid and London bombings.

NATO is weak.  Going without NATO is addition by subtraction.  Look back at the Kosovo campaign and you will se what I mean.  Having to get the approval of 19 world leaders before any decision was made on how to manage the war crippled our efforts.  Allies are overrated.

...While Unilateralism has pretty much lost us the war on terror in Iraq (or put us at a severe disadvantage) NATO is our best shot at winning the War on Terror. NATO isn't full of wimps either; they're now commanding all forces in Afghanistan, a nation that actually attacked the United States. NATO is easilly the best option in dealing with Iran also; Iran is just as much of a threat to France and the UK as it is to the United States.

We need the most powerful nations on our side and engaging in military options with us. In a war between the United States and Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda probably wins. Why? Because their definition of winning is easier than ours. They've already killed over 3000 U.S. civilians in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and the 1998 African Embassy bombings. Not to mention the 2000 plus U.S. soliders in Iraq and the USS Cole bombing in 2000. What do we have to counter their success? A "Free" Iraq? Oh please. Big deal. The only thing in Iraq useful to the United States is their oil. Bin Laden is still alive and free, as is Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and Mullah Omar (aka the big fish). 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, Rome. The vilest motherfucker in earth history. Rome well deserved all the hate it got and something extra, you know that? Believe you me, you don't want to take Rome as your role model, because if you do, that'd really be the end to whatever civil liberties you got left.

Always nice to see someone else sharing my opinion over something like that