Unless you’ve been living on another planet, you know that the Democrats that matter—the presidential candidates, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate majority leader—are against Bush’s Iraq policy, against American unilateralism, against NSA surveillance programs, against the CIA rendition program, against the Guantanamo prison camp—the list goes on and on. More succinctly, if Bush is for it, the weightier Democrats are against it.
Fair enough. It’s to be expected—especially as an election year nears—that the out-of-power party will ever-more-vocally criticize the in-power party’s policies. But the public deserves and should demand more than condemnations. In particular, the weightier Democrats should tell us what they are for and why the policies they favor will be better for us. To do this, of course, they’ll have to let us know what they believe will happen if their policies are implemented. Simply saying that they will result in a better, safer world and restore respect for America won’t do. Those are conclusions, not arguments. How do these conclusions follow from setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, placing greater faith in the wisdom of the UN Security Council, weakening the surveillance and rendition programs, and bulldozing Gitmo?
This the Democrats haven’t done—at least to my satisfaction.
This problem isn’t unique to the U.S. Here’s Nick Cohen on the situation in Britain:
However far it is from achieving power, a serious political ideology has to have a positive programme to live. For example, it is perfectly possible to imagine what a green government would do, while realising that the greens cannot conceivably win an election. By contrast, the Labour left talked at length about what it wouldn’t do – keep British troops in Iraq or Afghanistan – but had no coherent principles, no guiding programme.[ . . . ] The same question haunts the Liberal Democrats, who benefited so greatly from the anti-war wave of 2003.
[ . . . ] If Liberals and leftists had stuck by what outsiders assumed were their core principles, they wouldn’t seem so vacuous now. They might have opposed Blair and Bush while allying with Iraqis who wanted something better after 35 years of murderous tyranny than being blown to pieces by al-Qaeda.
The short-term political gains of ignoring victims of Baathism and choosing isolationism were obvious: fury, much of it justified, could be concentrated on the organisers of a disastrous war. But opportunism has its price. All that remains is a selfish, consumerist leftist culture without commitment.
When I go to the homes of the richest people I know, I see the works of Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky and I think: ‘Well, of course you can read them because they’re no threat to you.’ They, along with millionaire comedians, stockbrokers and the aristocrats on the board of the ENO, strike leftish poses safe in the knowledge that the political left no longer threatens their interests or demands anything from them. All they have to be is against British and American policy, which Bush and Blair have given ample reasons for so doing.
So is the American Left split between the outright “Surrender Democrats” of Harry Reid and the intentionally ignorant of the consequences of their actions “Ostrich Democrats” of Nancy Pelosi?
“... a serious political ideology has to have a positive programme to live.” Nick Cohen
Well, who’d a thunk. And yet, in one form or another, this premise, either explicitly or implicitly, often needs to be stipulated and even argued before more substantial and more consequential aspects – of a global crisis and war no less – can be debated, Nick Cohen merely furnishes the latest example.
I agree that the Democrats have not sufficiently explained their opposition to Bush’s policies and have not come up with enough alternative, viable policy ideas. But I think it is because they are still couching their words and are too afraid to state the facts as they are. The Iraq war, however it ends, is lost and the Democrats should say it. After more than four years, more than three thousand American dead, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead and billions upon billions of dollars, what discernible improvement in Iraq can one see? The personal security of the average Iraqi has deteriorated, the security failures of Iraq have allowed terrorists to flood in and stake out new territory, the list of failures goes on. The Democrats should call it as it is, but they don’t because they have allowed themselves to become ensnared in Bush’s cheap, jingoistic trap where anything that sounds like this war is a failure is immediately translated into a lack of support for the troops and that terrifies the Democrats. There is no success plan in Iraq because subduing the insurgents/terrorists/sectarian death squads (what is this week’s word?) would require hundreds of thousands more troops and a 5 to 10 year commitment to Iraq that the next administration will have no stomach for. I predict the next administration, be they Republican or Democrat, will set unrealistic success benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and when they are not met, the administration will be able to claim Iraq did not live up to its commitments; we are already seeing the first hints of this shameful blame game.
kitsune
What discernible improvement is there in Iraq.
Saddam and his sons are dead.
The Iraqi government is no longer killing people at the behest of Saddam and his sons.
Three elections have been held and a representative government is in place.
Recent reports from Anbar and Baghdad show more civilian cooperation in resisting terrorists.
Many say that it takes ten years to quell an insurgency. Four years is less than half way to get there.
Over three thousand wonderful people lost is a tragedy. But in military terms it is about the size of an infantry brigade (according to wikipedia.) The defeat of terrorist sponsoring governments in Iraq and Afghanistan (The over three thousand number includes both) at the cost of one brigade in soldiers lost is an unheard of military accomplishment. Remember that in Vietnam we lost 56,000, never captured Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh, and left with the result being the tragedy of the “boat people” and the rise of a murderous killing fields regime in Cambodia.
Many said that the first gulf war would result in 10,000 US deaths, the same claim was restated for the initial assault in the Iraq war. It did not happen.
As for your statement that the personal security of the individual Iraqi has deteriorated, what is that based on?
Are Iraqis living in the territories controlled by al-quaida more secure?
Only if the people refuse to educate their women, make their women stay at home, make their women marry foreign terrorists, say nothing in criticism of the terrorists, refuse to participate in unions and do everything else required by Islamo-fascists.
You are correct that a democratic administration would have no stomach for finishing the war. The same may be true, hopefully not, for a republican administration. But that will not make the Islamic fascists go away, and will not stop the strikes on the “far enemy” which is their term for the West.
Can you predict what will happen if al-quaida prevails in Iraq?
Can you tell us that that an al quaida controlled Iraq will be better than finishing this war?
“are against Bush’s Iraq policy, against American unilateralism, against NSA surveillance programs, against the CIA rendition program, against the Guantanamo prison camp”
are there people who are FOR these things?
“are there people who are FOR these things?”
Hell yes, on their own merit. They’re necessary tools for a nasty nasty world getting uglier by the day, pull your head out of the sand. Or of course, as Marc suggests, provide real alternatives.
The question that should be asked of those who oppose our involvement in Iraq should be, very simply, “What would you have done?” The only answer is “I dunno…” which is another way of saying “Nothing, not a damn thing.” An answer of “The same thing that Bush would have done but more competantly and with greater involvment from our European allies.” is not a credible response. “I would have employed better diplomacy.” is not only credible but totally absurd.
Peggy Noonan described a hypothetical Kerry Administration foreign policy thusly, “Kerry would surround himself with very bright people, experts in their fields, and they would study every problem very carefully and decide what should be done. Then they would realize that the correct thing to do would be the same thing that the Republicans would do – and they couldn’t do that. So they would do nothing at all.”
And by the way, the Oil For Food funds would still be flowing to a great many influential people – including Mark Rich, the former fugative millionaire who made such a generous contribution to Bill Clinton’s Library. Funny how all that would work out, isn’t it?
A man of the left speaks on this issue:
The Left’s Iraq Muddle
Yes, it is central to the fight against Islamic radicalism.
BY BOB KERREY
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107
Michael Totten reviews Paul Berman’s “Power and the Idealists” with particular emphasis on its coverage of the new French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. Another man of the left who supports the war in Iraq:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001442.html
scott- the alternative would be to get out of the middle east. if we have to curtail liberties to fight a war than we cannot fight the war. it’s simply not possible.
“give me liberty or give me death” isn’t just a slogan. You seem like smart guys, I shouldn’t have to tell you that if you bump up against the constitution you’ve taken a very wrong turn.
“the alternative would be to get out of the middle east. if we have to curtail liberties to fight a war than we cannot fight the war.”
Get out of the middle east is the answer? And if we have to make sacrifices the cause is not worth undertaking? I think you literally might have your head in the sand, and I’m not quite sure where to begin with that one. Ignoring losing everything we are fighting for now and all of western history from imperial Rome to 9/11 (insert picture of falling towers here), I would love to hear where exactly you see the near, intermediate, or distant future going with no hard US geopolitical influence in a portion of the globe spanning Morocco to India, that contains over half the world’s proven oil reserves and almost a billion people, a dangerously large portion of whom are religious zealots (some of whom are working hard to develop the Bomb) looking forward to the resurrection and expansion of the Islamic Caliphate? And the constitution? The only thing those people don’t bump up against in the constitution is maybe the right to bear arms and the since stricken prohibition amendment.
As I think most of us ‘smart guys’ who follow this site would agree, it is your attitude, shared by so many people in the Western world, that is almost as scary to us as the zealots’.
Curtail liberties? And if we have to do that we can’t fight a war?
In WWII people were limited to 3 gallons of gasoline a week and there were no automobile tires to be had. That sounds like a curtailment of liberties.
In WWII all private flying within 100 miles of the country’s coastlines was prohibited. Now, I can’t fly near Cape Canaveral when there is Shuttle launch, and the airfield I flew out of near Wash DC is all but closed now due to security-related restrictions, but the WWII restrictions were orders of magnitude worse.
In WWII people were not allowed to own shortwave radio receivers. Many were confiscated for government use and possession of one was not allowed for fear of use by spies. That sure sounds like a curtailment of liberties to me.
In WWII people of Japanese descent were not allowed to live on the West Coast of the U.S. except in internment camps. They could live elsewhere – but that sure is a curtailment of liberties.
In WWII travel was highly restricted, since not only was there no gasoline available, the railroads and airlines gave priority to the military. Today we have to pass through a metal detector and take off our shoes to get on an airliner, but
In WWII, millions of people were drafted into the military without volunteering. More curtailment, big time.
The list could go on and on, but it appears that we could not have fought WWII. Too inconvenient it would appear. Too much curtailment.
I think it far more likely that curtailment of our liberties will occur if we do NOT fight the war “over there.” The Left would appear to think it is just fine to avoid foreign combat and instead fight the war over here using attitudes appropriate to a security guard in a J.C. Penny store in downtown Detroit – but in fact they are the FIRST to complain about having a bag searched on the subway or a phone call to 1-800-AlQueda wiretapped.
ww2 was a mistake in my opinion. but at any rate. I couldn’t care less about having influence in Moracco India or anywhere in between. WHy would I? Whoever in charge has to sell us oil or they’ll go broke. If they don’t for some reason, we’ll have to focus even more on alternative fuels. We’ll certainly come up with SOMETHING.
everything we’re fighting for? i’m not fighting for anything. My ancestors came to america to escape the franco prussian war and have greater prosperity. We’re here for the same reason the people coming over the border in maxico are here: liberty and free makets.
Moracco has been moracco for thousands of years. so has india. they will do whatever it is they have been doing. Muslims have zero influence or appreciation of the world economy and cannot conceivably compete in it. how they could re establish a caliphate in a capitlaist global economy is unfathomable.
besides, american gun ownership is at a record high. If any caliphaters came here they’d be lunchmeat in 5 seconds when they knocked on the vey first door.
You guys need to reread “conscience of a conservative”