Steve,

Thanks again for the link to the Berman piece. I know you're busy, but if you get a chance soon could give us your thoughts on a comment from your earlier post?

Berman identified Feingold and Kennedy as anti-war. For the sake of argument, let's take it one step further and set the dividing line at acceptance/rejection of the Bush doctrine. Which democrats at or near the top of the pyramid would you consider likely to openly repudiate the Bush doctrine before 2008? Which republicans would you consider likely to openly repudiate the Bush doctrine?

There aren't too many in Washington I trust, but Wes Clark is one of them.

I recently saw "Control Room" (ok, so I'm a bit late)and I'd be very interested in hearing what the Al Jazeera crew from that movie is observing now, after 2 1/2 years into the war. Is there any chance you can get their perspective either at your conference or on this blog? Do they have a blog? (Wow. Wouldn't that be something.) I saw the Al Jazeera correspondant you had participating at your last conference on a CSPAN replay. I don't remember his name but he was very impressive.

Steve,

Thanks for the mention of Wes Clark, I believe he is an original thinker and that is what it is going to take to get out of this Iraq mess.

I am very interested to hear his thoughts on how we going to move forward from this quagmire.

Good post!

I wish "National Defense" was just that. No more of this crap about pre-emptive strikes, none of this nuclear chess with Iran, Korea, India and Pakistan!

DEFEND US, not the rest of the damned world. Just for a few years, let the rest of the world go to hell and rebuild AMERICA.

I know that if we did, none of the "nuclear threats" would threaten us. After all, we're the only nation that was stupid enough and bigoted enough to exterminate so many civilians. Absolutely all of the rest of the world's nuclear military force has arisen to defend against ours.

I'd rather we fight economic wars than military ones, so I could live the rest of my life in peace.

The problem now and which the government neo-cons are slowly realizing is that Iraq will eventually become an Islamic state, either through an election with Sistani as the force behind the scenes or through a civil war in which Iran steps in Syria-like to settle the matter. I wonder how much and how long the Sunnis will fight this and try to return to the power they had under Saddam. The US can not just pick up and go but they can not stay much longer either, staying drives the insugency but also keeps the civil war from exploding. I would imagine Wes Clark has some good idea about how to get others involved such as NATO or the Arab League to make up the security function left if the US leaves. Its the only way really.

Why oh why can't Bush and Co. gets their heads around this? I don't believe they are serious about working with others, witness their respect for the UN by appointing a jerk for UN ambassador.

I wonder how the US would have felt if some other country (probably England or France at the time) would have occupied America and claimed to be "keeping a lid on" our potential civil war?

Some things are better worked out internally...

Frank Rich has a good piece in today's NYT-Bush has already lost the war in Iraq. The choices for extricating US troops from that mess are truly limited, though. Bush and Co. are so invested in this war (ego, greed, politically, their historical legacy...oh yeah, and the real reason they attacked Iraq, OIL) that we shouldn't expect them to change course any time soon. In addition, they burned their international bridges long ago so they can't expect any cooperation from the world community.

Clearly, it will take a change in the Congress next year to force a change in the administration's policies. In other words, our elected representatives need to call Mr. Bush on his bulls**t. Let's hope Democrats can get out ahead of this issue and provide voters with some real (and realistic) alternatives.

Wes Clark had the score on Iraq from the beginning. I welcome any and all leadership from Clark, who is one of the most intelligent, sensible, and morally persuasive guys around.

Biden -- he has more charisma, in a tough kind of way -- but has to prove he does more than talk on TV. Too many times Biden has not stood up to the administration over the past 5 years when it counted, imo.

As our troops pull out, replace them with Islamic peacekeeping troops from neighboring countries. Is'nt that a compromise between the hawks and the 'pull them out nows'?

Steve, thanks for the focus on The Strategic Class. It's a measure of the capture of minds by lib-hawk groupthink that not one major post at TPM Cafe has yet focused on it (maybe that's changed since Saturday morning, my last look).

In fact, Larry Diamond closes out his time at the 'Table for One' by demanding recognition that "idealism" underpinned much support for the invasion, among neocons and liberal hawks. So much the worse for freaking idealism, I'd say; it's hard to give credit for noble goals when there's no corresponding recognition of realities.

Max Sawicky once said it well: There is no moral obligation to do the impossible. That crowd spends a lot of time browbeating others about the morality of their goals and not much time examining the realistic possibilities of achieving them. Much less our right to be the arbiters of what's best for any other country in the world....

Nell,

I think this whole concept of "muscular idealism" is really what's at the heart of the debate within the Democratic party. The dividing line isn't "hawks vs. doves" -- it's whether or not one thinks that U.S. foreign policy should center on spreading American values to the rest of the world, and whether or not one believes that this will ultimately contribute to U.S. national security.

Those of us in the more realist(ic) camp need to be putting forth an opposing set of arguments to counter this.

As we're seeing in Iraq, there are some parts of the world with cultures and systems of values very different than ours, and we're gradually having to accommodate that in Iraq, especially with the inclusion of Islamic law in the constitution. We need to have a frank discussion within the Democratic party of the lessons we should learn from Iraq -- but I think some of these people are so wrapped-around-an-axle ideologically that it will be difficult for them to accept these lessons. Instead, they'll be writing articles a year from now about how the Bush team made mistakes, and how Democrats would have succeeded in the "transformation" of Iraq.

Strange, somehow the third paragraph in my comment got inseted above the second.

None of the reasons for invading Iraq were true, including a desire to democratize the country.

They do not have an exit strategy because they do not want to leave. They want to foment war with Iran and Syria, so for this administration, the continued insurgency is just what they need, to justify staying, like 9/11 gave them their "Trifecta".

This administration sees natural resources in Iraq that we want, so they have to have a democracy, some semblance of a legitimate government to sign mineral mining leases and make it look legit. That's all. It's exactly what we've done to our own indigenous peoples.

"In discussion last night, it was clear to me that Biden does believe Bush has badly misled the nation."

Biden implies this by saying that Bush needs to "level" with the American people. Biden uses "misled" only in the sense that Bush paints an overly optimistic picture of our predicament in Iraq which is at odds with reality, and thus is able to skirt having to tell of the immense difficulties of our position and how to extract ourselves honourably.

Biden's use of "misled" does not go as far as telling the people that Bush lied the American people into an unnecessary, illegal and immoral war. Biden does not go near that Truth. He still spouts the Republican fall-back position "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein!" which is highly debateable in the aftermath of having removed him under false pretenses (WMD), and what might be the upshot of the Iraq mess after all is said and done. We all may very well long for the days of relative stability that Saddam provided.

The positions Biden takes are all informed now (and probably for a long time have been) by his presidential aspirations. There are some truths he can't tell; there are some truths he cannot allow to cross his mind as a matter of conscience, a conscience that needs to support his ambition to ascend to the Presidency. He cannot entertain the facts that lead probably half of Americans to believe that the President of the United States lied his country into war. Biden must be adamnant that this is not the case so that high respect for the office of the President is maintained, an office which he hopes to hold. Thus, Biden is limited in his being able to tell the truth about our being deceived into war. He will skirt the issue by saying we have to look forward. In politics the truth is told only when it is in the political interest of the politician. Truth, and it's consequences, are often a Loser, which is why politicians can't be trusted to "level" with the People.

Gorman,

I concur on Biden. A few points come to mind, as I wrote Steve on this article:

I know some DLC[1] types think my vote is automatic as I have voted Democratic in every election, I supported Kerry over Dean, even though, unlike the beltway folks I thought Iraq would be as Syracuse was to Athens. That said, I want to assure both Sen. Bidden[2] and Clinton that I am through with candidates who think every issue can be massaged away, such thinking has been catastrophic for the Democratic party and it has done nothing positive for the nation...yes, it has helped individual careers, but when you think, behave and vote as irresponsibly as a "New Republican", my vote will come up missing, with or without Diebold's chicanery. Biden's stances have made voting Democratic pointless. With Biden as the canidate, I might as well vote Republican and catch some business conections that I now miss playing the sap for Democrats whose only concern is their career advancement.

Further, if Democratic leadership gets the impression people like me are peaceniks, I'm sure I can match their hawkish views on Iraq with my views on taking down Pakistan's open support of terrorist through out the world. I note, in practice, ISI is the most sophisticated terrorist organization in the world and the only one that has access to nuclear arms.

And while I think highly of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is mentioned in this article, good people can be just as wrong as bad people and when comes to the break-up of Iraq, or for that matter, the breakup of the former Soviet Union, a short term gain was accomplished while setting back long term national interests. As a consequence of our collective inattention to long term matters, China will soon have free reign in central Asia and history has [since at least 1250 B.C.] shown that the West does poorly when this region is in play

The current "position" of "Democrat leadership" is to allow Republicans to set the Domestic/International agenda and then one up 'em on it. After the last 4 and a 1/2 years, it should painfully obvious that the Republic in its present form can not sustain many more years of such gross incompetence by either it's leaders [Republicans] or it's followers [Democrats]. Washington is starting to have the look and feel of a Jim Jones encampment.

S Brennan,

[1] used generically

[2] After the Bankrpcy Reform Act, Bidden couldn't get my vote if he begged for it.

I think Biden today on Meat the Press got out in front of what Steve describes as "Clark's suggestions on what America should be doing now on both fronts [Iraq and Iran]" that "were novel and deserve serious attention."

Biden, in effect, said that a regional summit, led by the US, of at least all nations bordering Iraq, must be held to find a way for all those with a major stake in Iraq's succesful transformation to have a voice on how to best proceed. This would mean getting together with at least Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, to find a way to extract ourselves from Iraq. I suspect this is the Wes Clark approach since Biden used the Balkans as an example of how Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Montenegrans etc. got together to come to a viable understanding as to how to proceed there, a process with which Wes Clark was intimately familiar.

I fear that Democrats making intelligent proposals in public on how to best proceed will only make the Bushitas' more inflexible, as they will see any incorporation of suggestions by Democrats as a signal of weakness, and real men don't show weakness. Maybe Condi can be approached and take credit for pushing the idea of the Democrats.

Gail,

I think Biden is trying to have it both ways...Kerry tried that and it didn't work well, not withstanding Kerry's incredibly good war record.

Here is Bidin Jr. today in the Boston Globe;

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has laid out a doctrine of rebuilding alliances while making clear that ''force will be used -- without asking anyone's permission -- when circumstances warrant." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/
articles/2005/08/14/democrats_embrace_tough_military_stance/

So it sounds like more of the same Biden to me, except Biden's tough guy routine is a little thread bare from his Viet Nam days as a student deferment recipient extraordinaire. Now I'm saying that his avoidance of service or his failed candidacy of '88 due to multiple plagiarism charges[1] disqualify him from being deemed the best the Democrats could did up to run for president, it just makes him less creditable in the public eye, when it is he himself is the one out laying charges against Bush's on the issue of credibility.

So while I have reservations based on Biden's policies themselves, particularly his subservience to the credit industry with the shameful passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act, I feel his "I'm tough on Iraq" policy is not only wrong and out of step with public thinking, but is particularly damaging to the nation as whole in that it cuts off useful discusion that needs to take place [2].

Now Sen. Joe Biden may try to do some fancy footwork and drop his support for Iraq as his previous positions prove unpopular and lacking in foresight, but Iraq is Joe's tar baby and he is stuck with his open and strong support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The conservative media simply will not allow him to weasel out of it. Biden supported George Bush Jr. and now he doesn't. You got ask yourself, has the Democratic sunk so low that this is the best we can do?

Gail, if it is Clark's ideas Joe Biden is plagiarizing, why not run Clark and skip plagiarism angle altogether?

[1] Those charges unlike the SwiftBoat liars, proved deadly accurate.

[2] See Boston Globe article cited above.

That said, I want to assure both Sen. Bidden[2] and Clinton that I am through with candidates who think every issue can be massaged away, such thinking has been catastrophic for the Democratic party and it has done nothing positive for the nation...yes, it has helped individual careers, but when you think, behave and vote as irresponsibly as a "New Republican", my vote will come up missing, with or without Diebold's chicanery. Biden's stances have made voting Democratic pointless. With Biden as the canidate, I might as well vote Republican and catch some business conections that I now miss playing the sap for Democrats whose only concern is their career advancement.

Very well said. I think the Dems are going to see major defections in '06 and '08, letting the GOP win by a kind of default. Progressives will have to be stoic about this, and think over a longer term than the next election. Round about 2010 or so I can see pathological Republicanism finally discrediting itself for a generation. But we need a better coalition for picking up the pieces than the Democrat Party provides.

Joe Biden is a worthless piece of human filth. Thanks to his stupidity and cowardice, Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court. Perhaps, if Neil Kinnock had made a speech describing an approach to Court nominees, Biden could have stolen it and been more effective.

The debate will advance when Biden receives universal scorn. He also needs to know, now, that he will not be president in 2009, because many of us who voted for Gore and Kerry will not vote for him, thanks to his weak-kneed support for unacceptable policies. Bringing him back to the fold is not the answer. He needs to work, very hard, to earn respect that he has forfeited.

A seeming problem faced by those who oppose the war in Iraq is articulating a strong realistic policy for dealing with terrorism. Yet it doesn't appear all that difficult. The way to overcome terrorists is by targetting terrorists, along with their financial and ideological supporters. This requires a MUCH larger CIA. That's all. That was clear before the Iraq occupation.
Aside from the problems of waste of money and human life, Iraq has muddled thinking about effective anti terrorism by providing -even to liberals- the illusion we are doing something via the occupation. Every day we stay we postpone the development of a real anti terrorism program.

Any DLC candidate for Prez that refuses to

a) explicitly assert the stupidity, lies, and substantive damage to our national security (as well as fiscal security, etc.) stemming from the War in Iraq, or

b) refuses to mention the legal necessity for a Congressional Declaration of War

will never get my vote. Nor my $$$.

If there EVER was a war requiring a formal Declaration of War, this was it. Offensive, of questionable motivation and dubious basis. And "preemptive" -- and you all remember who put the lie to the supposed legitimacy of preemptive wars, don't you. A certain Mr. Adolph Hitler.

That's right, no lie. We can not only read history books, but the Constitution too.

No Senator who refuses to acknowledge the black-and-white application of those lessons and laws shouldn't get any votes at all.

Oh, yeah -- there's absolUTEly nothing strategic about this approach at all.

I saw Evan Bayh giving a speech about the DEms having historically backed a strong defense.

You could see & hear him calculating & checking to see just how effective this gambit was gonna be -- even before he was done speaking.

Problem is -- his need to even state it this way showed just how far from clued-in he is about the issues at hand. Clearly feeling the need to counter what he has been told are the perceived positions/character of the Democratic Party.

He'll never grasp what's in the best interests -- both national defense & national security -- as long as he's believing -- or simply going along with, the prevailing propoganda about what Dems believe.

Biden Criticizes Administration on Iraq -- headline from today's washington post w/link below...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081500299.html

To:

"Biden Criticizes Administration on Iraq"

I reply with text cut and pasted from above;

"Now in time, Sen. Joe Biden may try to do some fancy footwork and drop his support for Iraq as his previous positions prove unpopular and lacking in foresight, but in the general election Iraq is Joe's tar baby and he is stuck with his open and strong support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

Frankly, Joe wants to be president and like every BS'er he sounds good until you compare his record to his words...and it then becomes clear what kinda guy he is...in fact, he reminds a lot of the current occupant of the White House, long on the wrong and light on the right.

Steve!
Post about your discussion with General Clark! I want details!

There are fundamental questions that are not asked to the "strategic class" and especially to the senior Democratic leaders in the foreign affairs

a. Is the Iraq war a moral and/or just war? Yes or No.

b. If it is NOT a moral and/or just war, why should the US troops die there?

c. If it is NOT a moral and/or just war, how many American soldiers must die? 978? 3,047? 12,815?