« "A Group Called" | Main | Death Squad for Iraqis »

Would You Like A Little Humility With That Whine?

Here's something I've been wanting to get off my chest: liberal hawks, democracy-promoters, and the like who are disappointed with the direction in which John Kerry is taking his foreign policy campaign might want to consider a little less whining and a little more self-examination.

Here's the thing. Before the war, such people were much more eager to hitch their banner to George W. Bush's star than Bush was to theirs. Bush's case for war overwhelmingly emphasized the Iraq War as a measure necessary to enhance America's short-term national security situation. The benefits of liberating the Iraqi people were, to be sure, mentioned, but as with Afghanistan this was portrayed as a sort of icing on the cake, a demonstration of American righteousness and good will, and not as the primary rationale for the policy. Vis-à-vis the Taliban, I think we all understood that. Bush invaded to depose the Taliban because the Taliban would not cooperate in efforts to root out Osama bin Laden, his key lieutenants, and the training camps they were operating. That the Taliban was a vicious regime was a consideration, but obviously not the decisive one -- hence the fact that America's Afghanistan policy took a rather drastic turn after 9-11. Consistent with this, Bush's commitment to postwar reconstruction in Afghanistan has been, as the democracy promoters usually admit, halfhearted at best. This, on Bush's terms, is basically fine -- the Afghan War was about fighting al-Qaeda and we have, indeed, fought al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Similarly, the case made for invading Iraq was that we had to remove Saddam from power quickly before he acquired nuclear weapons which he might use against us (possibly via connections with terrorists) or threaten to use in order to extract concessions from us. Liberating the Iraqi people was a consideration, but not the consideration. We invaded Iraq and not, say, Burma. What's more, we invaded Iraq instead of investing more resources in Afghan reconstruction because Saddam Hussein was a "grave and gathering" threat to the United States which made it vital that we act there.

Bush did, it is true, make some grand promises about an Iraqi democracy, but before the war we already knew that he had made some grand promises about a "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan" on which he had failed to deliver. We knew that his administration contained a dovish-realist bloc around Colin Powell that absolutely abhorred crusading idealism. We knew that it also contained a then-ascendant hawkish-realist bloc around Cheney and Rumsfeld that, while enthusiastic about the Iraq venture, was ill-disposed toward prolonged nation-building efforts. Last, we knew that it also contained a hawkish-idealist "neoconservative" element around Paul Wolfowitz that mixed enthusiasm for Iraqi democracy with enthusiasm for Ahmed Chalabi and his circle of cronies and that adopted a studied posture of ambiguity on the question of what they would do if the Iraqi people failed to democratically embrace Chalabi.

It was also clear before the war that Bush was implicitly arguing to people that the war would be relatively cheap in terms of money spent, lives lost, and time consumed. We knew that Bush had not set aside any money in his budget for a long-term occupation, nor welcomed a public or congressional debate about postwar conduct in Iraq. Many administration and administration-allied figures argued or implied that even if allied support was absent during the war, people would rally around our banner once the fighting was done. The term "cakewalk" was tossed around, and everyone expressed absolute certainty that the United States would uncover stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Knowing all that, and knowing that the administration had never put democracy-promotion front-and-center as a primary rationale for war, a large number of people primarily interested in democracy-promotion chose to support the war anyway. Which is their right. You will note that the Cato Institute supports pharmaceutical reimportation even though the main congressional supporters of such a measure are liberal democrats who differ from Cato in why they think this is a good idea and what it's likely consequences are. I'm inclined to think that Cato has this right, the liberal democrats have it wrong, but I -- like the Cato Institute -- will be happy to see the liberals' program enacted because I believe the results will be good for the world. Again, a non-trivial number of libertarians have expressed the view that it would be good for John Kerry to be elected president because that result is likely to reduce the growth in federal spending. That certainly isn't what John Kerry has to say in his own favor, but there's pretty strong empirical evidence to support the view that (a) the GOP will controll congress in 2005-06 no matter what, and (b) dividing government restrains spending more than unified Republican government. So even though that's not Kerry's case for Kerry it's perfectly acceptible for people to embrace the small-government case for Kerry and vote for him.

But here's the thing. If your buddy tells you to vote for Kerry because that will restrain spending growth, and you take his advice, and Kerry wins, and then it turns out that the Democrats sweep to control of all three branches of government and start socializing everything, next time your buddy gives you advice you probably aren't going to listen.

Most democracy-promoters decided that the implication of their view was that one should support Bush's invasion of Iraq. Bush's invasion of Iraq hasn't worked out nearly so well as the American people were led to believe it would. It has cost a great deal of money, has gotten many people killed, our allies have not rallied around us, we've kept the casualty figure under control by means of compromises with bad actors, no WMD stockpiles were revealed, and it seems like establishing a liberal democracy at this point will be a long, hard slog.

Logically speaking, none of that proves that the democracy-promoting approach to foreign policy is wrong, but it's hardly surprising that there's been a backlash against it. It was the democracy-promoters, after all, who chose to associate their approach with Bush's conduct. So people who are not happy with Bush's conduct are now pulling away from the democracy-promoting approach. That's not 100 percent fair, but it is 100 percent understandable, and it was 100 percent predictable before the war that this is what would happen if things went badly. One of the risks -- indeed, perhaps the main risk -- democracy-promoters took when they chose to endorse the Iraq War as a democracy-promotion venture was that if it didn't work out, they would find themselves out in the wilderness. They could have said: "I have some concerns about the way Bush is going about this, and I think it's important to retain the credibility of foreign policy idealism, so I'll say that unless Bush really changes his approach, gets serious about costs and budgeting, and comes clean with the American people, I'm not going to support this war even though it's against a vivious dictator." But they didn't. They said: "Sure I have some problems with the way Bush is doing things, but this is 'the right war for the wrong reasons' and it should be supported anyone." The upside to doing things that way is that if the war had stayed popular and had produced a liberal democracy in Iraq, the promoters could claim credit. "See, we told you this was a good idea even if the president seemed a little dodgy." But the war hasn't stayed popular and doesn't seem to be producing a liberal democracy. So they get the blame. So both parties have, to some extent, turned more toward their respective realist wings.

At any rate, this jackass is a perfect example of what I'm talking about ("True, this administration made mistakes in pressing the case for war, but..."). Did the administration make mistakes or did he make a mistake in supporting a lying administration? Is he really so shocked that after the gambit didn't work out so well people don't want to applaud Joe "Like Scoop Jackson But With More Apologetics for Torture" Lieberman?

August 5, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83459f19a69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Would You Like A Little Humility With That Whine?:

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 2:16:03 AM

Comments

There's also a little difference between supporting the war and enabling it. I still remember his photo ops with Bush in 2002 to cut off what Democratic dissent there was. If you want to bet the farm on being a Republican ass-kisser, you better make sure they do everything right.

Posted by: Tim H. | Aug 5, 2004 3:14:45 PM

Only marginally related but:

Is there any way in which Kerry is less specific about what he'd do in Iraq than Bush?

Why are people asking kerry to do a treatise when Bush can get away with essentially saying "stay the course" -- even when not staying the course?

Keef

Posted by: keef | Aug 5, 2004 3:16:46 PM

MY,
With their virtual lock on the Presidency are you feeling a little inadequate toward the Yalies among us?

Posted by: theCoach | Aug 5, 2004 3:17:12 PM

you know, it's interesting that Liberman is so hawkish on the one hand, but such a political wuss on the other.

why, it's almost like he's happy to let others get their hands dirty but doesn't want to do so himself ... if he were a real tough guy, he'd figure out a way to marginalize people like Michael Moore. Instead, he just fucking whines and moralizes in the wilderness ...

As for Scoop, that dude is so fucking over-rated. How about the time he derailed the deal Kissinger had worked out with the Soviets to quietly allow tens of thousands of Jews to emigrate?

Posted by: praktike | Aug 5, 2004 3:35:05 PM

why, it's almost like he's happy to let others get their hands dirty but doesn't want to do so himself ... if he were a real tough guy, he'd figure out a way to marginalize people like Michael Moore. Instead, he just fucking whines and moralizes in the wilderness...

Well, Senator Lieberman did, like, run for president. Had his candidacy progressed, or had he won, I guess he would have had to get his hands dirty.

I'm hoping he still may yet endorse Bush.

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Aug 5, 2004 3:53:31 PM

OT: What is the quintissential example of a guy jumping on a new band wagon at just the wrong time?
I know there is one that iannot think of -- I am reminded by PB Almeida of Zell Miller.
PB, have you decided to vote for Kerry or Bush? I feel like I should know, but I am confused.

Posted by: theCoach | Aug 5, 2004 3:57:25 PM

pb-

I mean it's odd that he believes it's okay to use certain means (killing innocent civilians) to achieve a goal (democracy), but not okay to use dirty political tricks to get ahead.

Posted by: praktike | Aug 5, 2004 4:00:10 PM

Lieberman is not worth talking about.

Do I need to apologize? Doves may consider me evil. From Dallas, I have hated Bush longer than most people here knew who he was. I hated Bush when he pretended to run the Texas Rangers.

I had very few illusions about Afghanistan, I hoped the pipeline and Caspian oil would inspire Democracy promotion, but with Iran so close and the 'Stans a mess and the unclear and competitive situation over who gets to control the Caspian oil the hopes were not high.

It was obvious this administration was brain-dead about the time the 4ID was sitting off the coast of Turkey. I had no illusions about Bush, but somehow hoped that Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would be more practical. Thing is, there is a ton of money to be made off Iraq. There is a capital base available in oil, the most educated and secular population in the ME, water for generation and industry. Not just the small change made so far, but build industry and a free market not mercantilist economy in Iraq, and trillions are in sight. Consumer manufacturing, military equipment, Iraq is ideal. And no other Arab League country is even trying to be competitive with imports. Iraq could own the area like Japan did the Pacific Rim.

Ok, so this administration ain't doing it, and maybe never intended to. I also knew that once we went in, no matter how badly the pooch got screwed, it would be impossible to get out. Flame away, I wanted the committment. I have it.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 5, 2004 4:02:18 PM

I'm sure there was a fine point in there somewhere. You are a bright young man with good things to say but for the love of god, simplify, shorten, and organize your writing! Articles like this allow the haughty news people to gloat over their perceived superiority.

Posted by: Your english teacher | Aug 5, 2004 4:33:27 PM

Matt, you are taking these Bush-as-Wilson people too seriously. It's not just that they decided to support Bush's decision for reasons that were not Bush's. Many of them - I'm thinking of the Oxbloggers, the Tacitus people, some WaPo writers, and various pseudocon columnists - have divined that democracy promotion was Bush's secret goal all along, a point so clear it apparently needs no factual justification. 9/11 changed everything and under Bush we've rejected the cynical realpolitik of the past, and begun the march toward an ethically consistent and altruistic foreign policy to defeat those who hate freedom; Bush's rhetoric and actions demonstrate this, the centerpiece being the attempt to inject liberalism into the heart of the Muslim world. Also, Kerry is the protege of Henry Kissinger. So it doesn't really suffice to point out "Oops, you guessed wrong." A lot of these people have constructed a whole new framework to justify their decision, and one that's not really tethered to reality.

Posted by: EH | Aug 5, 2004 4:51:29 PM

Good point by EH. Nor is the hawks' assumption that, "well, duh, of course Americans supported the war in order to promote democracy, and not for their own perceived security needs" anything new -- they've been saying it for some time.

Posted by: PG | Aug 5, 2004 5:04:57 PM

Speaking of bald faced lies, how about the one where JFK says he's going to get our allies to ease our burden in Iraq. Do the math on that one and tell me he believes a word of it. What are we going to get, max, out of NATO? 5,000 troops if we're lucky? The man is flat out lying, period.

So, Matthew, hate to break it to you, but politicians stretch the truth. When they do it for causes you oppose, that doesn't make them any scummier than the ones who lie for causes you support.

Posted by: alexander | Aug 5, 2004 5:18:26 PM

I second English Teacher's point. I usually like this blog because I love direct discussion of the issues. Discussion about the intellectual positions that self-appointed pundits take on the issues: a big turnoff for me.

Posted by: next big thing | Aug 5, 2004 5:20:37 PM

Before the war, such people were much more eager to hitch their banner to George W. Bush's star than Bush was to theirs.

Ding! MattY hits the bullseye on this one. Support for the war from the "liberal hawks" had the problem that they were primarily in it to give themselves more credibility in public. By hitching "their banner to George W. Bush's star," they hoped to gain the ability to claim how mature and sober and non-partisan they were. The Bush administration, however, saw them as useful idiots. The war itself was going to be handled by Bush's inner circle of incompetents.

The Kerry campaign, however, gives policy makers among the liberal hawks the chance to actually be listened to. In that sense, a Kerry presidency offers more to the liberal hawks than a Bush presidency, which relegates them to the "me-too!" corner, derided both by the left and the right, not to mention that a Bush presidency ruins their credibility when the White House blows the whole thing.

Posted by: Constantine | Aug 5, 2004 5:21:23 PM

"War as a democracy-promotion venture"? This is sick.

Posted by: abb1 | Aug 5, 2004 5:27:46 PM

Alexander, it sounds like NATO is almost entirely the USA plus some nations that let us have bases. Just us and a bunch of scarecrows.

How long has the american public known about this? We used to talk like our NATO allies mattered. Now it turns out they're only Potemkin allies.

Posted by: J Thomas | Aug 5, 2004 5:58:34 PM

Abb1, picture the iraqi politicians lined up in front of the american drill sergeant. He's barking at them. "OK, maybe you're pigs. But when I'm done with you you'll be *democratic* pigs."

Posted by: J Thomas | Aug 5, 2004 6:01:26 PM

If Scoop Jackson were alive today I’d like to believe he would step out of retirement and speak the truth to idealists and realists, both of whom swim a deep and vast sea of denial.

First, the realists, otherwise known as internationalists.

We hear from this crowd – most of whom are Democrats – that we are at war with al Qaeda (ie an organization), and not so much that we are at war with an ideology, which is to say radical Islamism. They tell us that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror. When asked for specific answers about how to defeat radical Islamism, and a concrete foreign policy agenda, they repeat the mantras, “multilateralism,” “alliances,” etc. But multilateralism to what end? Alliances to what end? Upholding the political, economic, and cultural status quo in the Arab and wider Muslim world, and our relationship to that status quo, which you’ll note was what brought us 9/11 in the first place?

So we cooperate with the Saudi and Egpytian governments and security services, as the realists would have us do, every now and again alerting them to the movement of some senior al Qaeda figure, perhaps on some lonely desert highway eighty miles from Cairo, or Riyadh. The Saudi or Egyptian security services act quickly, and apprehend the bad guy, or kill him in a hail of bullets. Meanwhile, the people of the Muslim world, and particularly the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, continue to seethe in rage and hatred at their repressive rulers, hopeless economies, and the cynicism and brutality of American foreign policy in the Muslim world. They see pictures of the dead al Qaeda leader on Al Jazeera, and want only to do harm to their governments, and to America.

Realism might well lead to the containment of al Qaeda, but containment means that the House of Saud and Mubarak and all the rest remain in power, and that we continue to in effect enable these bad and repressive regimes. Containment means that that the recruitment will continue, that some Jihadists will inevitably slip through the cracks, and every now and then launch attacks on American soil. What the realists don’t grasp is that the American people will not accept containment, as they did during the cold war era. The American people will accept nothing short of an end to the attacks.

Which brings us to idealism…

To their credit, the idealists – otherwise known as the neoconservatives and the liberal hawks – understand that a) the root causes of Islamist terrorism against America are the political, economic, and cultural status quo in the Arab and wider Muslim world, and America’s enabling of that status quo, that b) the American people will accept nothing short of an end to terrorist attacks against America, and that c) the only way to win a war on terror is for America to bring democratization, economic liberalization, and cultural reform to the Arab and wider Muslim world. That is in part what the war in Iraq was supposed to be about, not a diversion from the war on terror, but a central part of this enterprise.

So what’s the problem with idealism?

It’s twofold. First, there’s the legitimacy deficit. After decades of doing the wrong thing vis a vis the Muslim world, Muslims simply do not now trust us to do the right thing. It doesn’t help that the standard bearer of democratization and liberalization is George W Bush (that should be self-evident by now…)

The other problem is just as large, and will only get larger. It is the fiscal deficit. America cannot afford her current domestic and foreign policy commitments, let alone the potentially 25 trillion in medicare, social security, and medicaid payments to baby boomers, universal health coverage, the repair and restoration of our aging and crumbling infrastructure, increased funding for education, the development and deployment of a new energy infrastructure, and a multi-decade “war on terror” that includes invasions, occupations, and nation building throughout the Muslim world. We are already looking at double, and perhaps even triple digit tax increases for everyone in the coming years just to cover the entitlement benefits of the baby boomers, and much of this increased burden of taxation will fall upon generation x, which you’ll note is only slightly more than half the size of the baby boom, and considerably more indebted (if that’s possible), and less well off. Add to all this the fact that our Asian creditors are not going to hold onto our shaky treasuries forever, and a rapid dollar devaluation, and probably long-term deflation, are possible, if not likely.

The avalanche is coming. It’s only a matter of when, not if.

So what’s the alternative?

It ain’t pretty of course, but it’s time someone other than Pat Buchanan mention it in polite conservation.

I’m talking about isolationism.

Al Qaeda, and the other Islamists targeting America, have a strategic, geopolitical agenda. They want to drive America, and particularly American military power, from the Arab and wider Muslim world, and re-establish the Islamic caliphate from Morocco to Afghanistan. They have no territorial ambitions in North America, but we stand in the way of their territorial ambitions in the Arab world.

Our best hope for ending the attacks against us is not to fight the war on terror, give them what they seek – a strategic withdrawal of all American military power from the Muslim world, and perhaps even a strategic withdrawal of all American diplomats and government infrastructure as well. Isolationism.

Withdrawal is only part of the equation though. There are two other parts. In order to be autonomous from the Muslim world for a period of years, or decades, America must end her dependence on Arab oil, which means in the short term drilling in ANWR, opening public lands for natural gas development, more nuclear and coal, and in the long term it means developing and deploying a clean energy infrastructure, using solar, wind, biomass, and technologies we haven’t even thought of yet…

It also means putting the National Guard on the borders, limiting immigration and visitation by Muslims from around the world, allowing religiously based profiling (and altering the Patriot Act so that all its provisions apply only to national security cases), and letting the Muslim world know that America will be open to her again as soon as they clean house, and grow the fuck up.

If we continue down our current course, we will bankrupt the country, and only inspire more hatred and violence against us. If we veer towards liberal, "realist" internationalism, the attacks will only continue, and with each one more draconian measures will be taken against us of us in the name of political correctness.

Isolationism is the last good option.

Someone needs to say so.

Posted by: the isolationist | Aug 5, 2004 6:48:09 PM

Shouldn't the verb phrase for the 'liberal imperialists" denoting "hitching their wagon to Bush's star" be "hitchening" -- after a well known dupe?

Posted by: roger | Aug 5, 2004 8:28:50 PM

"I have some concerns about the way Bush is going about this, and I think it's important to retain the credibility of foreign policy idealism, so I'll say that unless Bush really changes his approach, gets serious about costs and budgeting, and comes clean with the American people, I'm not going to support this war even though it's against a vivious dictator."

Hey Matt - Some of us Democracy Promoters actually did say this, and we attended the marches and supported and anti-war candidates. And all we got from the cool kids and the pundits and many of the Liberal Bloggers was a lot of grief as THEY were all busy establishing their "moderate" credentials.

Personally, I think your Domestic Policy views will be faced with a similar awakening as your foreign policy views. You seem to like a lot of more "conservative" thought in the abstract, but you don't realize that it has nothing to do with their actual actions or goals in the particular. CATO and Libertarianism are nothing but big white washing projects to defend a Party that does not really share their stated values, goals, or methodology except in a handful of incidences. And smart Harvardians like you should understand that.

Posted by: MDtoMN | Aug 6, 2004 1:44:07 AM

Isolationist, you make a good point.

However, if we follow your idea we can't really *win*. We will have to make sacrifices to get minor victories. We will have to severely reduce our standard of living to come close to energy independence, at least at first. We will have to give up being the world's only superpower. We will have to give up the idea that we can control all our enemies in the world. If china attacked taiwan what would we do? If the middle east attacked israel, or if europe embargoed israel, what would we do? If the flemish and the walloons started trying to ethnic cleanse each other, what would we do? We would have to let things take their course until some nation or alliance got strong enough to be a threat to us. And at every point we would have extremists arguing about Who Lost Iraq? and Who Lost NATO? and Who Lost Pakistan? and so on. It would be hard for any politician to support a program like this.

We will have to try other approaches first until we are sure that none of them can work. Maybe we'll luck out and one of them does work. But we must try and lose before we can possibly accept isolationism.

"Herring doesn't believe in vinegar until it has steeped awhile."

Posted by: J Thomas | Aug 6, 2004 2:16:56 AM

"However, if we follow your idea we can't really *win*."

We've already lost the war on terror. The American people just don't know it yet.

"We will have to severely reduce our standard of living to come close to energy independence, at least at first."

Not with widespread deployment of nuclear, clean coal, and immediate drilling in ANWR. We don't need to be wholly energy independent - yet. We only need to eliminate our dependence on Arab oil, which accounts for about 20% of our energy use. In addition, my plan would create many thousands of great, high wage in many cases unionized jobs.

"We will have to give up being the world's only superpower. We will have to give up the idea that we can control all our enemies in the world."

I hope so. Pax Americana has already given up the ghost of legitimacy. It's only a matter of time before it's *actually* dismantled.

And you don't really believe we can control all our enemies, do you?

"If china attacked taiwan what would we do? If the middle east attacked israel, or if europe embargoed israel, what would we do?"

Sit back. Enjoy the show. I don't care about Taiwan. I don't care about Israel. I care about America.

"If the flemish and the walloons started trying to ethnic cleanse each other, what would we do?"

Nothing, because it's not going to happen. If the Ethiopians started to ethnically cleanse the Eritreans, we'd also do nothing, but that's because they're not white folks. Sad but true.

"It would be hard for any politician to support a program like this."

Exhibition A for why politicians are odious.

"...It would be hard for any politician to support a program like this."

This is the logic of crazy, self-destructive people, willfully courting tragedy. It is almost certainly the logic of the current administration, and would almost certainly be the logic of a Kerry administration too. Unfortunately, it is almost inevitable that once a nation becomes an empire, it almost inevitably becomes crazy and self-destructive. Still, I have to ask, why are you people willing to destroy America in order to save Pax Americana?


Posted by: The Isolationist | Aug 6, 2004 2:51:33 PM

Oops. Screwed up that last part. It should read:

"we must try and lose before we can possibly accept isolationism."

This is the logic of crazy, self-destructive people, willfully courting tragedy. It is almost certainly the logic of the current administration, and would almost certainly be the logic of a Kerry administration too. Unfortunately, it is almost inevitable that once a nation becomes an empire, it almost inevitably becomes crazy and self-destructive. Still, I have to ask, why are you people willing to destroy America in order to save Pax Americana?

Posted by: The Isolationist | Aug 6, 2004 2:55:16 PM

One last overarching point:

The interests of American multinational corporations, the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Enterprise Institute, the PNAC, Brookings, the Israel lobby, the Washington Post editorial page, and the big corporate media generally, do not represent the interests of ordinary Americans, or for that matter American national security. They are all the defenders and promoters of American empire, and it is American empire that will destroy America.

Posted by: The Isolationist | Aug 6, 2004 3:07:01 PM

One last overarching point:

The interests of American multinational corporations, the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Enterprise Institute, the PNAC, Brookings, the Israel lobby, the Washington Post editorial page, and the big corporate media generally, do not represent the interests of ordinary Americans, or for that matter American national security. They are all the defenders and promoters of American empire, and it is American empire that will destroy America.

Posted by: The Isolationist | Aug 6, 2004 3:07:18 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.