wish the Democrats would fall back on "use more diplomacy"

Just watch: American Hawk and Al (or maybe egbert) will do almost back to back posts within the first eight posts on this thread. They're all the same guy!

Ditto JPS.

For its first six years, this administration practiced an all-or-nothing foreing policy in which we're at war with other nations or entirely disengaged.

There's a vast, vast middle ground in which we can actually become engaged in the world again. Conservatives tend to wave off any form of constructive engagement as weak. In fact, building strong partnerships with both allies and adversaries is in our own best interests.

Or as Nick Lowe put it: What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

If Gore had been allowed the recount, the Republicans would be united and only defined by slander of Gore. And NO ONE would question that at all.

This is simple. The leadership should propose a ten poin tnational security plan to cover every BUT Iraq:
Energy independence
Port and chemical plant security
Job and industry growth and security
environmental cleanup
job safety
corruption cleanup
etc, etc.

Surely we can get agreement on that sort of stuff because it is unimplemented and out in the future. WE can yell about positive things and leave the right wing in their own Great Dismal Swamp which they created and want to perpetuate, disaster without end

We have GOT to not let ourselves be defined by our response to the other side's disaster. And we certainly want to avoid getting manacled to their disaster

The Bush/Republican security plan has been so successful in making us secure and filling us with hopeful signs that it will be a tough act to follow.

A good start would be for the Democratic presidential candidates to state what they would do in response to the Iranian kidnapping of the 15 British sailors. In the age of Jihad, how to respond to such provocations is rather important.

I've got a national security strategy. It's a little old, but still relevant - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I've got a national security strategy. It's a little old, but still relevant - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

In the age of Jihad, how to respond to such provocations is rather important.

The "age" of Jihad, sir?

You are a moron of the highest level. This is the American century and any damned fool engaging in "jihad" is likely to be incinerated or shot before he steps off the curb. We have the matter well in hand. Calm down and have a tall cool glass of refreshing 'shush!.'

I imagine the Brits will end up doing about what Bush did with our spy plane forced down by the Chinese, apologize for violating their space. Why would anyone in Iran believe the British navy was looking for smuggled cars?

If Al Gore had taken office in 2001 (remember, Kevin, he *did* win), we would not have quite the foreign policy problems we have now, and would almost certainly not be mired in a Middle Eastern morass. So the job facing the Republicans in this hypothetical would not be so daunting.

Although they have an advantage: "use more military force" is a nice, simple message that they all seem to agree on regardless of the problem at hand. Democrats have no such schoolyard approach to fall back on.

Look, once a Democrat gets elected, the GOP will suddenly rediscover its aversion to military adventurism. They are quite consistent -- the only good wars are Republican wars.

Look on the web at the policy statements of the great majority of democrats in the Congress -- there clearly is a unified policy: Restore American credibility and leadership in International organisations and pursue rational, just foreign policy goals through them. Anyone who believes that this country, as diplomatically isolated, morally sticken, financially bankrupt, and politically dysfunctional as it has become, is going to "manage" the current global security crisis is plainly delusional.

Although they have an advantage: "use more military force" is a nice, simple message that they all seem to agree on regardless of the problem at hand. Democrats have no such schoolyard approach to fall back on.

Sure they do Kevin. It's the same strategy that every weakling on the schoolyard uses "Please don't hurt me!!" lol

…This is the American century and any damned fool engaging in "jihad" is likely to be incinerated or shot before he steps off the curb…Norman Rogers on March 29, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Suicide bombers kill 60 in Baghdad market
POSTED: 1:33 p.m. EDT, March 29, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 60 people were killed and 41 others were wounded Thursday when two suicide bombers wearing explosive vests self-detonated in a crowded market in a Shiite district in the northeastern part of the capital.
"It was a very, very crowded market. All those killed are innocent," a man who was wounded in the explosion told Reuters news agency.
"There were two car bombs and people started dying. I saw heads separated from the bodies and legs blown off," Wissam Hashim Ali, 27, told Reuters from the hospital….

Yesterday Tal Afar

Truck bombs kill 50 in Iraqi city of Tal Afar
POSTED: 10:41 p.m. EDT, March 27, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Two truck bombs Tuesday killed at least 50 people in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar.
The explosions targeted markets in the northern and central parts of the city, the mayor said.
Tal Afar Mayor Najam Abdulla -- who said another 103 people were wounded -- said the blasts came within a few minutes of each other.
Tal Afar, near the Syrian border in Nineveh province, is a predominantly Turkmen community with both Sunnis and Shiites.
A year ago, President Bush touted Tal Afar as an example of a place where U.S.-led coalition efforts were succeeding….

The morons are definitely Bush and his little loyal lickspittles.

"Democrats have no such schoolyard approach to fall back on."

They do, though: Help the poor. Build community. Work together. Embrace dialogue. Peace through understanding.

There's far too much "you can't reason with these people" talk on TV. There's no counterweight to it. But the counterweight is just as simple: "we have to reason with these people".

Unless by "schoolyard" you just mean bullyish. But that's tautological.

KD: The real key to the resurgence of the Democratic Party...

That's one key and an important one.

...is to nominate someone who has the good judgment to formulate a sane foreign policy in an age of jihad; the guts to stick to it even if AIPAC and Bill Kristol don't like it; and the rhetorical gifts to explain common sense so that it sounds like common sense. I think most of the top-tier Dem candidates at least have the potential to do this.

Totally agree and these are issues that I would like to see raised with and articulated by each candidate.

Whether they actually do it is the $64 question.

Oh, yes, that is the question... doing what they say they will do.

Kevin wrote: "The real key to the resurgence of the Democratic Party is to nominate someone who has the good judgment to formulate a sane foreign policy in an age of jihad ..."

Anyone whose frame of reference for formulating a "sane foreign policy" is the notion that we live in "an age of jihad" is an idiot or a liar who should not be allowed anywhere near any elected office, let alone the presidency.

We live in an age when the human species is rapidly degrading and destroying the capacity of the Earth to support life -- an age of mass extinctions, fossil fuel depletion, global warming, exhaustion and destruction of fresh water supplies, the collapse of agriculture and fisheries, the collapse of entire bioregional ecosystems.

Meanwhile the human population continues to grow, the vast majority of humans are impoverished while a tiny minority become ever more wealthy and powerful, and human societies spend over a trillion dollars a year (half of that by the USA alone) on weapons of war for use in fighting wars for control of and access to dwindling resources.

That is the frame of reference which defines a "sane foreign policy", and those are the primary issues that anything resembling a "sane foreign policy" must address.

The "age of jihad" meme is a bullshit marketing tool used to justify wars of unprovoked aggression to control Middle Eastern oil supplies and the enrichment of the military-industrial-petroleum complex. Anyone who uses it is a dupe or a fraud and most certainly will not get my vote.

BREAKING: Powerplay in the Senate! A Republican member has objected to the continuing of questioning of Kyle Sampson! Leahy has recessed the hearing until the issue can be resolved! (They didn't try this in Watergate but apparently they are now...)

I'll give 5-1 odds they don't, Kevin. I'll give 10-1 odds if they do, it will be Republican-lite, i.e., the American empire, only "kinder and gentler." (See Clinton, Bill.)

Oh, and Secular Animist is right, except the "hate America" political jihad that the likes of Kristol foment.

Oh, for the surge? If Bush would allow reproductive cloning, we could produce an entire Army of Als and American Hawks, give them some "operant conditioning," and send them over!

Meanwhile the human population continues to grow, the vast majority of humans are impoverished while a tiny minority become ever more wealthy and powerful, and human societies spend over a trillion dollars a year (half of that by the USA alone) on weapons of war for use in fighting wars for control of and access to dwindling resources.

Amen to that, sir! It's called free market capitalism and it is the best economic system in the world. Thank you for celebrating the free market today. Hold on, I need to go check the Dow and see where I stand this afternoon...

Actually, if Gore had become president after winning the election, Republicans would have plenty to agree on. For instance, they would all agree that those guys who were arrested in the summer of 2001 on the absurd claim that they were planning to kill thousands of people with box cutters were just being prosecuted as a dodge to distract the country from whatever imaginary scandal they were accusing Gore of. They'd all agree that, if only their guy had won, Iran and North Korea would by now have surrendered all nuclear ambitions. And they'd all agree that the deployment of 3,000 soldiers to Darfur hopelessly overstretched the resources of the military in a chimeric attempt to perform nation building where we weren't wanted, the sort of foolish mistake that only Democrats make.

Say it: America does not need a huge military to extort natural resources with.

How about "don't attack another country unless in strictly self-defense"? How about "intervene to prevent humanitarian disasters only when the world community agrees that a tragedy is unfolding, and joins in"?

Of course, the problem for the Dems is they are cowards (or ignorant). Even non-politician Dems, like Yglesias and Drum, still bought into supporting the War on Iraq, like the serious thinkers at the NYT, TNR, WashPo, NBC, CBS, Fox, Brookings, AEI, AIPAC, PNAC, Heritage, Hudson, etc., etc.

Will the Dems have the courage to contradict the demogoguery, stupidity, jingoistic, nationalistic, belligerant slogans that constitute our American political "thought"?

Short answer: "No."

03/29/2007 Bombers kill 60 in Baghdad market . . .

Why would we need a new foreign and national security policy when the president's policies are working so well?

unbreaking: Okay, it seems that there is a Senate rule that permits any Senator to request the Committee meetings be postponed while the Senate is in session. Not as big a deal but still something to watch for. Rumor is that it might have been Senator Luger who did this...but, um, I wonder how much time this bought for Sampson's lawyers to coach him some more before Grassley's questioning resumes in approximately two hours when the Senate is scheduled to end its floor business for the day...

In the New York Times today, Robin Toner quotes Matt Bennett of Third Way saying that Democrats need a positive national security plan that goes beyond mere opposition to the Iraq War.

The Dems need a positive national security plan? He's right. They ought to be saying: we'll fight terrorism and get it right. Talk about port security, border security, chemical plant security, implementing ALL the things that the 9/11 Commission recommended. Take the fight to the Republicans on their supposed strong points. The Bush Admin lost sight of terrorism on March 19, 2003. Don't let them forget it.

Age of jihad???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The US has killed many more people for latex, let alone petroleum, than all of the jihadis ever will or want.

Labor Outsourcing, and the ongoing gutting of the American Middle Class IS a National Security Issue.

Dependence on Foreign Oil - is a National Security Issue.

Massive trade and federal budget deficits, and borrowing of money from COMMUNIST CHINA is a National Security Issue.

An unfettered Unitary Executive, patronage, and cronyism, is a National Security Issue.

Unrestrained Defense Contract fraud, is a National Security Issue.

Runaway Anthropogenic Global Warming is a National Security Issue.

Loss of US Technological innovation is a National Security Issue.

Look waht Peteer Beinart said in Salon:

"The real danger for Democrats in the Iraq debate isn't that they'll oppose the war too aggressively; it's that they won't oppose it aggressively enough. In 1972, Nixon attacked McGovern as a liberal extremist, which wasn't exactly wrong. But the Democratic Party has become more moderate since the Clinton years, and in the past two presidential elections the G.O.P. has attacked Al Gore and John Kerry less as ideological radicals than as soulless opportunists, weather vanes willing to say whatever it took to win. As pollster Ruy Teixeira has noted, surveys in recent years show Democrats trailing the G.O.P. by more than 20 points when it comes to "know[ing] what they stand for."

If its good enough for Beinart, strangely enough, its good enough for me.

Perhaps the basis for a foreign policy that can work politically would go something like this:

Make no mistake, when absolutely necessary the United States will defend itself and its allies with all means necessary. That said, this is supposed to be a Christian nation and it is my belief that the best foreign policy is based upon the "Golden Rule". Not naively or blindly, but with eyes wide open since there are very real bad actors out there. But even they will act in what they perceive as their own best interest.

Of course just as the throw military troops at the problem this can be an easy statement but very hard to carry out.

...Democrats are apparently just now realizing that their foreign policy is wildly unpopular and are now flailing to 'explain' how surrender is actually victory. ...
Posted by: American Hawk on March 29, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Bush has already surrendered.

He surrendered the day HIS defense secretary ARMED thousands of Iraqi Insurgents with 300 tons of HDX explosives by willfully failing to secure the Al Qa Qaa arms depot (among many, many others).

Bush surrendered to North Korea the day he decided to scuttle the deal to provide them with two light water reactors to prevent them from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from their heavy water reactor.

Bush surrendered to Iran the day his staff outed our top CIA agent managing the Brewster Jennings network investigating nuclear proliferation in Iran.

Bush surrendered to Israel the day he decided to disengage the US from the Palestinian peace process.

Bush surrendered to Saudi Arabia the day he decided to invade their enemy, Iraq, on their behalf.

Bush surrendered to Al Qaeda the day he let bin Laden escape, and he continues to do so, every day he refuses to lean on Pakistan to track the motherfucker down and bring him to justice.

Bush surrendered to the Taliban the day he withdrew forces from Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq.

The Democrats' plan:
Don't arm terrorists.

Don't underestimate the potential of the looming confrontation over a withdrawal date.

Bush has always been in favor of staying in Iraq forever and ever. It is the centerpiece of the Republican/PNAC Iraq policy, but one that the Democrats have never been able to force into the open.

Bush wants a weak Iraq so that the Maliki government and its successors can never ask us to leave. Our unwillingness to leave, and our need to impose weakness on the Iraqi government, have created the fire under the Iraqi chaos. Forcing the nature of this policy into the open will allow a completely different, and far more honest dialogue about American foreign policy to emerge -- not just a Democratic alternative proposal but a joint project among progressives and conservatives, based on something other than lies and hidden greed and bloodlust.

If Norman Rogers is actually Kevin Drum, then at least the entertainment value alone is worth the price of admission. (free).

policy in an age of jihad;
Drum

Finally and forever: Fuck You Kevin Drum.
Our 24 blogger.

Note the similarity between Toner's comment today and (my interpretation of) Stengel's yesterday. Both commenters see the Dems as lacking any serious policy to deal with Islamic fascism, or Radical Islam, or whatever you wish to call it. These two experts are ahead of the common person. But, voters may reach that same understanding by Nov., 2008.

I hope Kevin's mention of AIPAC doesn't mean that he thinks foreign policy would be a snap if it weren't for those JEWS. I hope he's not one of those people who thinks Israel runs America's foreign policy and that Israel is the only barrier to peace in the Middle East. I think Israel is just an excuse used by tyrannical Arab governments. If Israel didn't exist, these same dictators would be just as big a problem.

Foreign policy today is very challenging. It would be nice if the Dems started making positive contributions -- if they did more than resist whatever Bush does.

Incidentally Quaker in Basement, the Administration didn't just use an all-or-nothing foreign policy. Libya had an ongoing program to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration negotiated an end to that program.

I guess, judging by the comments above, the Democratic response to Islamic aggression is to firmly shove one's head in the sand. Most of the comments above seem to adhere to what was once called the "Blame America First" point of view although it perhaps could today be labelled the "Blame America and its Allies First) POV.

So, if Iran kidnaps British soldiers in Iraqi waters (and there is no doubt that this happened) in order to extract some advantage from the UK or US, then one must either (1) insist that it was the UK at fault or (2) insist that Iran really means well or (3) say anything at all so long as excuses are made for Iran and blame is heaped on the west.

Happily, I note that none of the leading Democratic candidates have, so far, taken this line. I wonder how long they will be able to resist the demands of their base, though.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Note the similarity between Toner's comment today and (my interpretation of) Stengel's yesterday.

Given that you're a lying neocon hack, "ex-liberal," and that everyone on these boards knows it, I can't imagine a more effective discredit to Toner's comment.

I hope Kevin's mention of AIPAC doesn't mean that he thinks foreign policy would be a snap if it weren't for those JEWS blah blah blah

Given that your stated opinions, strangely enough, make sense only if one presumes you value the interests of the State of Israel over the United States, your dishonest raising of the specter of anti-Semitism comes as no surprise either. Of course, your opinion on this matter is easily dismissed along with all your other bullshit.

You discredit and shame yourself and your stinking, corrupt neocon philosophy with every post, "ex-liberal." You persuade no one. Why do you bother?

wish the Democrats would fall back on "use more diplomacy" Posted by: JPS on March 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Except that the Republicans will immediately fire back, "You don't negotiate with terrorists!"

And the MSM will have a field day with headlines, "Defeat-o-crats want to surrender to terrorists"

I think the proper answer is "International police enforcement".

And when the Repubs and their bootlickers whine about Democrats wanting to give terrorists "trials" and "rights" they can retort, "yeah, we want to do things the civilized way. Let the barbarians do things the barbaric way."

By the way, "ex-liberal," you stinking, lying neocon toad, Kevin's mention of AIPAC obviously means that AIPAC has a strong, if not undue, influence on American foreign policy, and that this interest leads American policy in directions that benefit the State of Israel but not necessarly the United States.

Now, would you care to address that issue, or are dishonest straw men all you have in a pathetic, handwaving attempt to distract from it?

Gregory: Kevin's mention of AIPAC obviously means that AIPAC has a strong, if not undue, influence on American foreign policy, and that this interest leads American policy in directions that benefit the State of Israel but not necessarly the United States.

Yes, that was my point.

Yes, that was my point.

No duh, dipshit. Obviously you tried to portray Kevin's poin as shomehow behyond the pale with your slimy insinuations of anti-Semitism.

But again -- do you have anything other than slimy bullshit and straw men to indicatie that Kevin's point isn't valid? So far, you seem to be conceding -- and remember, we know you adhere to the neocon delusion -- that you can't really deny it's true, or you'd have actually rebutted the point.

The guys at powerline are smarter than me

Chickenhawk, ol' pal, I have shoes that are smarter than you.

and have conclusively refuted this rumor:

Holy cats...then it's probably true!

The Democratic Party has no function other than the destruction of George W. Bush. We thought this was quite clear. What are this silly "policies" people keep asking for?

Our country is fooling itself if it thinks just booting the repugnacans out and upping the numbers of demoncrats will solve our problems.

Nope. The two parties are basically the status-quo.

We can plead for bipartisanshipism all we want but what's missing are other parties and their view on things.

Our government would be so much more powerful if we had 3-5 major parties, each bringing better voter representation to all debates and issues.

Our country has become more divided by the rich and the richer believing greed is a godsend, while the rest of us sweat from paycheck to paycheck.

Until our government reflects the needs of all citizens, it is suspect.

We need leaders who jettison corporate ties and start thinking how to improve the lives of all humanity.

A strong military is one that doesn't have to be used.

Diplomacy is not weakness, but actually, at it's best, one of the most powerful of human inventions.

Say it: America does not need a huge military to extort natural resources with.

I disagree. In order to extort natural resources, the US does indeed need a huge military....

http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/issues_domestic/national_security/

I recommend reading the above blog, and its archives, on what Wesley Clark has recommended.

I've got a national security strategy. It's a little old, but still relevant - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

"the guts to stick to it even if AIPAC... ...don't like it"

And that in a nutshell is the problem.

You can talk about the power of diplomacy until you're blue in the face, but the problem with diplomacy is that its just not that exciting unless you actually acheive something. If Bill Clinton had actually acheived peace on the I/P front then that would be a tangible acheivement that could be taken to the American people as proof that diplomacy works. Standing on the White House lawn with lots of middle eastern leaders delivering vehement joint condemnations of Bin Laden is another tangible acheivement. All this is impossible while you're signed onto AIPAC's agenda. Its just not gonna happen.

The real reason Democrats look weak on National Security is that their diplomatic efforts throughout Clinton's term on what is currently America's biggest problem (ie the Middle East) have been a resounding failure. Conservatives are able to successfully paint Democrat's as weak on national security because when you get right down to it Clinton's foriegn policy in general was a failure. The Clinton administration's lack of success itself basically undermined the credibility of diplomacy as a tool of national security. He did not get rid of Saddam yet helped turn Iraq into a basket case. His I/P policies led to a second Intifadah. America's support in the Middle East was slipping even before Bush came to power. He was not able to come up with a solution to North Korea despite the South Koreans coming up with some good ideas. Russia went from communist to oligarchy on Clinton's watch. Some of this was in part the Republican Congress's fault but even that in part is due to Clinton not fighting hard and smart enough against congress. If diplomacy can't work without both houses controlled by Democrats you may as well give up now.

And this means that Democrats still can't talk about National Security and diplomacy with any credibility, especially on the Middle East. As long as you're basically helping bring about greater Israel your diplomacy is going to achieve very little. Which leaves you pointing out the problems of military force while not having anything tangible to offer in its place.

The only way this will change is if a Democrat gets in the White House and puts tangible diplomatic acheivement after tangible diplomatic acheivement on the table.

The Democrats must not let themselves be defined by the opposition. Iraq is not our problem. We should all move to Canada until the gop works it out.

Isn't it $64,000 question. I mean these days $64.00 won't get you much.

It is unnecessary and somewhat unfair to suggest that the Democratic Party needs to explain the specifics of a different type of national security plan. Should the next Administration be run by Democrats, they will face the same sort of limitations and have the same tools that all Administrations have.

Diplomacy will still depend on leveraging power and soft power will often be insufficient to change things for the better. Likewise, hard power will often be inappropriate. Each time a crisis emerges, both the State Department and Defense Department will prepare courses of actions (COAs) and the President will be faced with essentially the same set of tools to use as her predecessors.

It only makes sense to discuss different COAs in conjunction with specific cases and no one can predict exactly what those cases will be when the next Administration takes office.

During the Clinton Administration, the DOD dutifully changes all planning documents and OPLANs to reflect a greater reliance upon coalition building and reliance on allies. None of it actually changed how the US military operated, nor did it materially increase the assistance we received from our allies in any way. Secretary Rumsfeld's plans for immediately transforming the military ran aground against the realities of war. Still, transformation was happening anyway, as improvements in technology allowed. Calls for increasing the size of the Army and Marines might not make any sense after we finally withdraw from Iraq.

About the only constant I can see is that in every serious crisis, the President and State Department will look to the military to do the heavy lifting and, in extremis, kill people and break things. And in every case where we do that, some will say we shouldn't be there and some will (correctly) point out that we're not perfectly prepared for whatever it is we are asked to do.