Decision ‘08

The Democratic National Security Strategy Revealed

Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of the New Republic and author of the recent The Good Fight, has discovered the prevelant national security strategy the Dems take into the 2006 election: pander and run:

After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It’s called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America’s allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It’s jingoism with a liberal face.

The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address Congress. Great idea. Maliki — who runs a government propped up by U.S. troops — is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington’s puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because, unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have no hope of surviving on its own.

The Dubai Ports World fiasco is recalled as evidence of a pattern:

In February Democrats (and some Republicans) slammed the Bush administration for allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to take over operation, though not management, of several U.S. ports. Democrats insisted that they were standing up for homeland security, but in fact homeland security experts overwhelmingly said the move did not represent a security risk. The principle animating the Democrats’ attack was not security, it was politics. The Bush administration, playing against type, argued that America’s long-term security required treating Arab countries with fairness and respect, especially countries, such as the UAE, that assist us in the struggle against jihadist terrorism. One might have thought that the Democrats, after spending years denouncing the Bush administration for alienating world opinion and thus leaving America isolated and weak, would find such logic compelling. But what they found more compelling was a political cheap shot — their very own Panama Canal moment — in which they proved they could be just as nativist as the GOP.

Beinart concludes:

Privately, some Democrats, while admitting that they haven’t exactly been taking the high road, say they have no choice, that in a competition with Karl Rove, nice guys finish last. But even politically, that’s probably wrong. The Democratic Party’s single biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party’s behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why.

I like the way this young man thinks…

9 Responses to “The Democratic National Security Strategy Revealed”

1 too many steves Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 8:12 am
I’ve never voted for a Democrat but would consider doing so for one that ran on the principles that young Mr. Beinart espouses. Politics is the process we use to lead and govern but when it becomes the end rather than simply the means then, well, that’s when you lose me.
2 dmac Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 8:56 am
My favorite moment of late is hearing the leading Dem lights criticize the Iraq premiere’s speech to Congress as not being “sympathetic enough” to Israel. This, from a party that’s now overtly hostile to anything the Jewish state does to defend itself. Truly, mind - blowing hypocricy.
3 Pug Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 9:45 am
a party that’s now overtly hostile to anything the Jewish state does to defend itself.

You must be privy to something the rest of the world completely missed.

I like the way Beinart pins the Dubai ports deal on Democrats. He must not listen to much conservative talk radio. That whole thing seemed kind of bi-partisan.

My bet is Maliki is anti-Semitic like the rest of his countrymen. Or perhaps like the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, he believes this: “Some people say ‘we saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honour’. These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.” This is the Speaker of the Parliament.

We should all just pretend these Iraqis aren’t what they really are, Iranian backed anti-Semites? This is what Americans are dying to defend?
4 megapotamus Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 10:25 am
What Americans are dying to defend in Iraq is consensual government with the strategic goal of nurturing decency in the ME at large and, one might add, moving from a far more onerous tyranny than the one that sparked our own revolution.
Bienart gets lots of attaboys from Hewitt and the Powerliners but that is the admiration of the briefly-flying jackass. His venom for Bush always gets the better of him. His prescriptions are not bad on their own, generally, but as is always the case with the Dems, he asserts failure and despair on the current conditions under criteria that would have damned any military operation in history. Like Kerry, he and his cohorts think and declare that if only they were calling the shots, the lame would walk and the Sunni lay down with the Shia even as Arab with Jew. Hardy-har-har-har. But even if Bienert were not so vapid, as Horowitz has pointed out, there is NO consensus or any evidence of hope for same, either among the Dems or the Left generally for what should be done, save to oppose all actions by Bush, the Neo-Cons and the Israelis. In this he is perhaps right that the “softness” is not so salient a charge as simple incoherence. Still, no kewpie doll. Bienert wastes his breath but it is, of course, his to waste.
5 dmac Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 10:56 am
“You must be privy to something the rest of the world completely missed.”

Er, no - the rest of the world is quite aware of this:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001999939_alexander09.html

Please respond also to the fact that Carter has regularly disparaged Israel’s defense, beginning with the Lebanon excursion in the 80’s, the attack on Saddam’s nuclear reactor, the Raid on Entebbe - the list is endless. Also please respond to Gore’s increasing alliance with the movement towards “Disinvestment of Israel” on college campuses.

Or perhaps you’re living on a different planet than the one we currently reside on - in that case, ignorance must be bliss.
6 dmac Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 10:58 am
…or you can just see the prior post re: Dean’s brilliant musings, if you can bother to scroll down one inch.
7 Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » A Rarity In The Democratic Party Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 11:14 am
[…] Decision '08 […]
8 RedBlueChristian » Blog Archive » WORLDVIEW: DO DEMS LACK STRATEGY & PRINCIPLE? Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 11:55 am
[…] HT: Decision ‘08 […]
9 Fictor Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Lets see if we can get this out of Isreal for Lebanon, then we can all vote:

War reparations refer to the monetary compensation provided to a triumphant nation or coalition from a defeated nation or coalition. The compensation is meant to cover damage or injury during a war. Generally, the term war reparations refers to money or goods changing hands, rather than such property transfers as the annexation of land.