Monday, December 05, 2005

Democrats: all politics and no principle on Iraq

For quite some time now, I’ve been writing that the Democrats’ failure to articulate a position on Iraq is an abrogation of leadership. Now the WashPost acknowledges as much in “Democrats find Iraq alternative is elusive”:

Around the country, many grass-roots Democrats are clamoring for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. On Capitol Hill, Democratic politicians have grown newly aggressive in denouncing the Bush administration's war strategy and outlining other options.

But among the Democratic foreign-policy elite, dominated by people who previously served in the top ranks of government, there are stark differences -- and significant vagueness -- about a viable alternative.

In interviews, veteran policymakers offered no end of criticism about how President Bush maneuvered the United States into its present predicament, but only one had a clear vision of what he would do if the Iraq problem were handed over to a Democratic administration tomorrow. Several accept Bush's premise that a rapid withdrawal anytime soon would leave Iraq unstable and risk a strategic disaster in the broader Middle East.
The Post identifies Zbigniew Brzezinski as the one with an “unambiguous alternative” of (surprise!) rapid withdrawal. Over at InDC Journal, Dorkafork reviews the “National Security Vision” cooked up by some Democratic congressmen and concludes: “This is the same as the Republican plan. Except the Democrats are going to train Iraqi units faster, somehow. Maybe with magical troop training rays.” Also, be sure to read the simultaneous endorsement/condemnation of the United Nations.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bush's supporters keep parroting this line, but the historical fact is that the Democrats don't have to rebut Bush in a game of "well, if you think you're so great, what would you do, smarty?" Richard Nixon got elected in 1968 on the strength of his non-existent "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. Does anybody doubt that the Democrats' "significant vagueness" would trounce Bush's "stready leadership" today? If you believe in polls, Time Magazine reports that 60% of the voters will choose a candidate "completely different" from Bush. 36% want a repeat performer.

Eric said...

Other Bush supporters who keep parrotting this line include James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, who have urged the Democrats to try to stand for something.

But, hey, if ambiguity is your advice, then I'm all for that. It worked so well for John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry.

Anonymous said...

The GOP drumbeat for Democrats to offer an "alternative plan" is nothing more than an attempted trap, a tactic to shift the conversation onto the dots and semi-colons of some other, wholly hypothetical option (and away from Bush's Iraq as it actually exists). What adult thinks such a proposal would spark principled debate and not just a PowerPoint attack? It is a source of great frustration for the right that the Dems are not biting.

The onus is entirely on the GOP to hang onto power, by indicating that they can do better than Bush. It is for this reason that you're seeing fracture lines in the party. No serious Republican candidate can afford to align themselves with the unreflective "great job, Brownie" dynamic, not anymore.

Anonymous said...

His Excellency,
former Secretary
of State, Mr. Zib.
Brzinski, had of
Poland and the
Prussian State
a narrow map.
US citizens are
like Rice so well-informed
about Russia and the division of Poland that
it couldn't be
more funny because history
will come back.