Democrats' Foreign Policy: It Was Ever Fucked

(October 2004, with the presidential election — Kerry vs. Bush — looming.) How incoherent is Democratic foreign policy? Remember, the Bushies are just nuts. With Kerry you have disagreements. Big ones.

I'd say it is rock solid on the inadvisability of the Iraq invasion, and on the importance of international institutions to U.S. national interests (both justifiable and the other kind). The Bushies don't understand the latter. Poppy Bush did.

But the Bushies have a point about inconsistency. We broke it/we bought it doesn't quite cohere. Assume for the sake of argument the invasion was wrong and Kerry is elected. How does he roll into Iraq and clean the place up?

As the R's have noted, the possibility that France, Germany, and Russia would commit troops is problematic. They have a problem in terms of domestic politics and a lack of military resources. Will foreign Christian troops from those nations add stability, or just a diversity of targets?

The criticism about training is thin. I assume the Bush Administration is training as fast as they are able, which isn't much and wouldn't be any different for a Kerry Administration. (I don't believe their 100,000 number at all.)

Granting the Kerry criticisms that things have been hugely screwed up by the incumbents, it remains that their remedies are hollow.

What sort of Iraqi government could be constructed? Presently we have a gaggle of U.S./CIA puppets with no Iraqi authenticity. Alternatively, the truly indigenous elements, Kurds aside, want the U.S. out and hate Israel. How could a Kerry Adminsitration cobble them into a regime that would permit a dignified U.S. withdrawal? Like the joke about how you make love to an alligator. With great difficulty.

The (John) Edwards' critique of Afghanistan is similarly handicapped. Certainly things are less great there than depicted by the Bushies. But would we shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan? What's the great plan there? Our allies are supporting us, with no indication that the multi-national character is much of a help. I supported the overthrow of the Taliban with U.S. force, but I don't have any great ideas on how to move things forward. Lots more money and troops, I suppose. The Russian approach. That really worked.

The idea of Bush incompetence assumes that there was a tenable policy going in. That is the most dangerous of the Democratic preconceptions, since it applies to other countries. Edwards gave the impression that military force could and should be wielded to bend the Iranians, North Koreans, and we don't know who else to non-proliferation goals. I think this is delusional. (It is shared by the non-crazy wing of Republicans, which is why I characterize Kerry-Edwards as promulgating good Republican foreign policy.)

NK is more-or-less immune to U.S. threats of force, since it could obliterate our ally South Korea at a stroke with conventional weapons. Iran is protected by the vastness of the task of conquering it, not to mention "winning the peace." Iran is vulnerable to O-bomb-ing (I don’t recall what this was a reference to. It’s too early to refer to Obama.—MBS), but its ideological capacity in the Muslim world would be strengthened. Speaking of which, I don't see a lot of daylight between the tickets on Palestine.

Kerry is right that, as Winston Churchill said, "jaw jaw is better than war war." But I would say deterrence is better than ultimatums backed by threats of Iraqi-style invasion. You either have to back those up, or cease raising them.

In the realm of foreign policy, we have to hope that a Kerry presidency would be less rash, but indications it would be more wise are lacking. It appears vulnerable to panic in the face of terrorism, in which category I would classify the Iraqi invasion.

We need to turn the kooks and krooks out of office, but we also need to think differently.