The Foreign Affairs Narrative

With more evidence that the Democrats have a solid chance of gaining control at least one chamber this November, there are those who wonder how the Dems will blow it. Count me among them.

Dan Balz of The Washington Post had another of his excellent analysis pieces this weekend in which he laid out comprehensively the competing theories of what the “anti-war” movement could do to the Democrats’ November prospects.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said it is a mistake to contend, as the Republicans are doing, that the Democrats have been captured by left-wing, antiwar activists, saying the Connecticut race most of all reflects discontent with Bush rather than an ideological awakening. "This is really about Bush," he said. "It's deeper than an antiwar thing."

Still, many party moderates say they see worrisome parallels to what happened to the Democrats during Vietnam, when they opposed an unpopular war but paid a price politically for years after because of a perception the party was too dovish on national security.

"Candidates know they cannot appease [antiwar] activists if they are going to run winning national campaigns," said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute. "It will intensify the tension inside the Democratic coalition as we head into two critical elections."

But leaders of the net-roots activists, and some party strategists, argue that as antiwar sentiment spreads Democrats stand to gain politically by aggressively challenging Bush's war policies. Parallels to Vietnam are inaccurate, they say, because of the nature of an Iraq war that has become a low-level sectarian civil war.

There are many of us who opposed the war from the beginning but who now recognize that a quick pullout and retreat to isolationism is not a viable option. If anything, we must be engaged. Only the U.S. has the power to broker a lasting peace in the Middle East. An equitable solution to the Palestinian question is the first step. The Democrats can tell a compelling story.

The Bush administration and its rubber stamp, Republican-controlled Congress has seriously jeopardized our future, both internationally and domestically. They have fueled the threat from extremist Islamists and limited the help we get from our allies. On Sept. 12, 2001, the world was our friend. Today, radical violence has spread, and we have become isolated from the world. As a country we are less safe today than ever before in our history.

We cannot stay the course. We need a new one.

Internationally, that new course will demand that we seek a just end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is the lynchpin to defusing the terrorists. Muslims want peace and prosperity. To undermine the terrorists, we must have a return to Israel’s 1967 borders and a free Palestinian state bolstered by international aid to rebuild their economy. An international force must be convened to enforce the peace in the short-term.

We must end the Israeli-Lebanese conflict and offer aid to both sides to rebuild their countries. We must provide unwavering support for the Lebanese Democracy in its fight against the Hezbollah. That requires first and foremost, that we talked to Lebanese prime minister, something President Bush has not done through the nearly four weeks of fighting.

Diplomacy begins by talking with your enemies, not just your friends. We must open a dialogue with Syria and Iran, something the Bush administration has refused to do. Instead it issues ultimatums. We must work to end Syria and Iran’s support of terrorists by offering economic incentives that will also encourage democratic elements within those countries. A strong international coalition must be formed to organize this effort. We should assure them that we will not attack their countries. If we believe in democratic ideals, we can work to encourage democratic forces within those countries to control their own destinies.

In Iraq, we must set firm deadlines for the Iraqi government to assume control of their country and for our forces to leave. Only Iraqis can end the civil war there. If necessary, we must explore allowing the country to be divided into Shiite, Sunni and Kurd autonomous entities.

We must demand that Saudi Arabia withdraw its tacit support for Islamic radicals in its own country and that the Saudi monarchy facilitate democracy. We must demand that Egypt end its persecution of democratic elements in the country.

We must engage China and Latin America in a way that fosters free and fair economies, the surest path to stable, responsible and democratic governments.

At home, we must develop an alternative energy policy that radically reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

And we must rebuild our military strength, decimated by the Iraqi War, to ensure it is fully capable of protecting our homeland.

While in complete control of the reins of power, Republicans have failed to make Americans safe and secure. It’s time to end their failures and vote for a new direction.

Comments

[Bob]

True, but Dems suffer from the greater expectations of the media, egged on by conservatives. After tonight's Conn. primary, though, I think it's fair to say that the sticker on my car says it all: Had Enough? Vote Democratic in '06.

[Jackie Grice]

Our biggest problem with foriegn policy is GWB and his total lack of credibility. He's offended everyone including out closest allies. The rest of the world,(according to the BBC) can't WAIT to see the end of him!

[Bob]

“Plenty” is an inexact number. Out of the world’s population, even a few million don’t count for much. My point: We squandered an opportunity to respond much differently. We could have been harsh and militaristic with Afghanistan without invading Iraq. Better we spent those billions on building better economies as we fought as hard to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Then even those Palestinians might be silenced.

I suspect that we would be even less safe without many of the Bush Administraion's efforts since 9/11.

Unfortunately, their efforts had few results.

Israel's borders should remain where they are.

That’s simply a non-starter. Nothing in the West Bank keeps them any safer.

what sort incentives you have in mind and why Iran could be trusted to honor an agreement

Open talks on the Golan Heights, and no I don’t know that Iran can be trusted. But we won’t know until we begin to talk.

You’re right on with the $2 billion in aid to Egypt. And just let it be known that SA is on its own against Iran and Syria unless they shape up.

I’m not sure Emmanuel listens to anyone but himself.

[Brian]

For what it's worth, I think that the Dems are probably going to make history this year by taking the House w/o grabbing the Senate as well.

I do have some minor quibbles with some of your points, however.

On Sept. 12, 2001, the world was our friend.

Not this tired old trope again, please. Hyperbolic headlines in Le Monde do not mean anything. Plenty of people were quite happy about 9/11, even if they didn't want to say so then. I still remember the video of celebrating Palestinians.

As a country we are less safe today than ever before in our history.

Mabe so, but you could have said that in 1973 and would ahave been true then, too. I suspect that we would be even less safe without many of the Bush Administraion's efforts since 9/11. I just wish the administration would stop being so recalcitrant about writing new rules for a new war.

To undermine the terrorists, we must have a return to Israel’s 1967 borders and a free Palestinian state bolstered by international aid to rebuild their economy.

The Arabs of the Middle East have no one but themselves to blame for the Six Day War and its consequences. Israel's borders should remain where they are. As for a Palestinian state, it's fine by me. Maybe they could get some land from Jordan if they promise not to try to overthrow the government there any more.

We must open a dialogue with Syria and Iran, something the Bush administration has refused to do. Instead it issues ultimatums. We must work to end Syria and Iran’s support of terrorists by offering economic incentives that will also encourage democratic elements within those countries.

Talking with Syria and Iran is fine, and it might accomplish something with Syria. I'd like to know what sort incentives you have in mind and why Iran could be trusted to honor an agreement. Encuraging democratic elements in both countries is certainly a good idea. Unfortunately, it is much more likely to have positive outcomes in Syria than Iran.

In Iraq, we must set firm deadlines for the Iraqi government to assume control of their country and for our forces to leave. Only Iraqis can end the civil war there. If necessary, we must explore allowing the country to be divided into Shiite, Sunni and Kurd autonomous entities.

If your deadlines are defined by accomplishments rather than dates, this idea may prove positive. As for splitting the country, that may well be the best thing for the entire region. A free Kurdistan would probably destabilize Iran, Syria and (mostly) Turkey. All three have it coming. For what it's worth, the Kurds are already staging raids into Turkey.

We must demand that Saudi Arabia withdraw its tacit support for Islamic radicals in its own country and that the Saudi monarchy facilitate democracy. We must demand that Egypt end its persecution of democratic elements in the country.

Hear, Hear. What are you willing to have us do to back up our demands? It won't work with SA, but I can think of about 2 billion reasons a year that we could force our will on Egypt. If Democrats would be willing to turn off the spigot, they'd score with parts of the electorate that tend lump them all into the "soft on defense" crowd. (That crowd is going get bigger when the CT primary is over.)

We must engage China and Latin America in a way that fosters free and fair economies, the surest path to stable, responsible and democratic governments.

No argument here, pending specifics.

At home, we must develop an alternative energy policy that radically reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

The word foreign really doesn't need to be here. Oil is pretty well fungible. However, one might be able to craft a scenario where plenty of easily acceptable oil is vital to our survival, but I suspect it would be a rather unlikely one.

You ought to send this post to Rahm Emanuel. By the way, keep an eye on CO-7. It may be the canary the Republicans' 2006 coal mine.