Democrats still live in shadow of Vietnam
Tuesday, 12 June 2007
Philip Stephens
AMERICA'S Republicans do not know how to win in Iraq. The Democrats are gripped by the fear that they might be blamed for losing. Thus the war that has broken George W. Bush's presidency now tortures his political opponents.
The discomfort was there for all to see during the debate early this month in New Hampshire among the Democratic candidates for the White House. The three leading contenders spoke from the same script. The voters who had swept the party to victory in last November's mid-term elections wanted the troops brought home. A Democratic president would do just that. Straightforward enough, you might think. Until you ask how.
To be fair, the front-runners for the party's nomination have offered broader descriptions of how they would steer American foreign policy if they were to win the White House next November.
Hillary Clinton says that she would be both an idealist and a realist -- true to America's moral mission, but pragmatic in any assessment of how much it can change things. Barack Obama is keen to reinvigorate US diplomacy and rebuild alliances. John Edwards would replace Mr Bush's "war on terror" -- aptly described as a bumper sticker rather than a strategy -- with a much broader response to extreme political Islam.
All three pay expansive homage to Harry Truman and George Marshall, the president and the general whose post-war leadership matched America's military strength with political imagination and economic generosity. George Kennan, the architect of the cold war doctrine of "containment", also gets frequent name checks on the stump. The youthful Mr Obama, I am told, has learned not to pronounce his name as "Keenan".
There is some substance behind these bromides. The US does need to recast its relationship with friends and allies as well as enemies. The exercise of leadership requires a readiness to listen as well as lecture. Closing Guantánamo and restoring the primacy of the law in the treatment of detainees would begin to restore legitimacy to US policy.
Yet, as far as the campaign is concerned, the debate was a reminder that foreign policy means Iraq. Or as Richard Holbrooke, who served in Bill Clinton's cabinet and now advises Hillary, puts it, it means Iraq, Iraq and Iraq. Here the candidates are united - in fear. Mr Bush may be on the run as the war becomes more unpopular by the day. But last autumn's congressional victories seem as much a burden as an opportunity for the Democrats.
The party still lives in the long shadow of Vietnam. John Kerry's defeat in 2004 was a chilling reminder that it has never really shaken off the charge of being soft on security. The nightmare scenario now has it that when Americans get to the polls in November 2008 their desire to punish the Republicans may be matched by mistrust of the Democrats.
This fear explains the candidates' resolutely hawkish line on Iran - "everything is on the table" and the promise that any further terrorist attack on the US will be met with retribution on a scale that Mr Bush could be proud of. It has also bred dishonesty about Iraq.
The candidates dare not admit that eventual disengagement will be a bloody, costly affair, deeply damaging to US power and prestige in the Middle East and beyond. Instead they make the easy, and deeply misleading, elision between withdrawing US combat troops (I will come back in a moment to the qualification implied by "combat") and ending the war.
You catch the gist in a lengthy exposition of his approach to the world written by Mr Obama for the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. Everything is simple: "To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East".
No description here of how to reach that "responsible" conclusion, nor any recognition that the departure of US troops could well be followed by full-scale civil war and the break-up of Iraq. Likewise, Mr Obama offers scant explanation of how Iraq can be detached from the rest of the Middle East. Even without a big escalation of fighting between Shia and Sunni, a US retreat would alter fundamentally the political and security dynamics of the region.
Retreat, of course, is a word that none of the contenders likes to use. Ms Clinton speaks of America's departure and an end to the war as self-evidently coincident. As for any residual obligations on Washington, in the aforementioned debate she came about as close as is possible to saying that it is all the Iraqis' fault anyway.
The nod to reality comes in the small print of the candidates' prospectuses. This is where the qualification "combat" troops comes in. Each promises one way or another to keep an "over-the-horizon" military presence in Iraq or neighbouring states. These forces would guarantee Iraq's borders, prevent the country becoming a haven for al-Qaeda and forestall genocide. But how many? And what would they be if not combat troops? We must not ask.
None of the above says that the Republicans have the answers. To the contrary. George W. Bush's strategy seems to be to play for time -- to keep the troops there until he has left the White House. Among the leading candidates for the Republican nomination, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney back the president with little obvious conviction. John McCain could be said to have taken a principled stand in support of Mr Bush's surge but, absent sufficient political will or capacity to sustain it, his cause is also a hopeless one.
But if the Democrats expect to win in 2008 -- and it is hard to think of a time when the Republicans are likely to be weaker -- they must be prepared to look beyond the election to the mess that will confront them. To offer the voters easy answers now is to invite a mighty backlash when the reality proves otherwise.
That reality can be readily put. Losing in Iraq -- and Washington is beyond choices here -- carries a high price. There will be no easy way for the US to extricate itself from the quagmire. The Middle East will become still more dangerous, with America's enemies empowered by its defeat. More blood and treasure will have to be expended to limit collateral damage. The US will need to make a serious effort to restore real negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
That is a tough message, you might say. But what have the Democrats been saying these past few years but that the present administration has been consistently dishonest about Iraq? Unpalatable as it is, the voters might just appreciate the truth.
......................................
FT Syndication Service
AMERICA'S Republicans do not know how to win in Iraq. The Democrats are gripped by the fear that they might be blamed for losing. Thus the war that has broken George W. Bush's presidency now tortures his political opponents.
The discomfort was there for all to see during the debate early this month in New Hampshire among the Democratic candidates for the White House. The three leading contenders spoke from the same script. The voters who had swept the party to victory in last November's mid-term elections wanted the troops brought home. A Democratic president would do just that. Straightforward enough, you might think. Until you ask how.
To be fair, the front-runners for the party's nomination have offered broader descriptions of how they would steer American foreign policy if they were to win the White House next November.
Hillary Clinton says that she would be both an idealist and a realist -- true to America's moral mission, but pragmatic in any assessment of how much it can change things. Barack Obama is keen to reinvigorate US diplomacy and rebuild alliances. John Edwards would replace Mr Bush's "war on terror" -- aptly described as a bumper sticker rather than a strategy -- with a much broader response to extreme political Islam.
All three pay expansive homage to Harry Truman and George Marshall, the president and the general whose post-war leadership matched America's military strength with political imagination and economic generosity. George Kennan, the architect of the cold war doctrine of "containment", also gets frequent name checks on the stump. The youthful Mr Obama, I am told, has learned not to pronounce his name as "Keenan".
There is some substance behind these bromides. The US does need to recast its relationship with friends and allies as well as enemies. The exercise of leadership requires a readiness to listen as well as lecture. Closing Guantánamo and restoring the primacy of the law in the treatment of detainees would begin to restore legitimacy to US policy.
Yet, as far as the campaign is concerned, the debate was a reminder that foreign policy means Iraq. Or as Richard Holbrooke, who served in Bill Clinton's cabinet and now advises Hillary, puts it, it means Iraq, Iraq and Iraq. Here the candidates are united - in fear. Mr Bush may be on the run as the war becomes more unpopular by the day. But last autumn's congressional victories seem as much a burden as an opportunity for the Democrats.
The party still lives in the long shadow of Vietnam. John Kerry's defeat in 2004 was a chilling reminder that it has never really shaken off the charge of being soft on security. The nightmare scenario now has it that when Americans get to the polls in November 2008 their desire to punish the Republicans may be matched by mistrust of the Democrats.
This fear explains the candidates' resolutely hawkish line on Iran - "everything is on the table" and the promise that any further terrorist attack on the US will be met with retribution on a scale that Mr Bush could be proud of. It has also bred dishonesty about Iraq.
The candidates dare not admit that eventual disengagement will be a bloody, costly affair, deeply damaging to US power and prestige in the Middle East and beyond. Instead they make the easy, and deeply misleading, elision between withdrawing US combat troops (I will come back in a moment to the qualification implied by "combat") and ending the war.
You catch the gist in a lengthy exposition of his approach to the world written by Mr Obama for the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. Everything is simple: "To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East".
No description here of how to reach that "responsible" conclusion, nor any recognition that the departure of US troops could well be followed by full-scale civil war and the break-up of Iraq. Likewise, Mr Obama offers scant explanation of how Iraq can be detached from the rest of the Middle East. Even without a big escalation of fighting between Shia and Sunni, a US retreat would alter fundamentally the political and security dynamics of the region.
Retreat, of course, is a word that none of the contenders likes to use. Ms Clinton speaks of America's departure and an end to the war as self-evidently coincident. As for any residual obligations on Washington, in the aforementioned debate she came about as close as is possible to saying that it is all the Iraqis' fault anyway.
The nod to reality comes in the small print of the candidates' prospectuses. This is where the qualification "combat" troops comes in. Each promises one way or another to keep an "over-the-horizon" military presence in Iraq or neighbouring states. These forces would guarantee Iraq's borders, prevent the country becoming a haven for al-Qaeda and forestall genocide. But how many? And what would they be if not combat troops? We must not ask.
None of the above says that the Republicans have the answers. To the contrary. George W. Bush's strategy seems to be to play for time -- to keep the troops there until he has left the White House. Among the leading candidates for the Republican nomination, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney back the president with little obvious conviction. John McCain could be said to have taken a principled stand in support of Mr Bush's surge but, absent sufficient political will or capacity to sustain it, his cause is also a hopeless one.
But if the Democrats expect to win in 2008 -- and it is hard to think of a time when the Republicans are likely to be weaker -- they must be prepared to look beyond the election to the mess that will confront them. To offer the voters easy answers now is to invite a mighty backlash when the reality proves otherwise.
That reality can be readily put. Losing in Iraq -- and Washington is beyond choices here -- carries a high price. There will be no easy way for the US to extricate itself from the quagmire. The Middle East will become still more dangerous, with America's enemies empowered by its defeat. More blood and treasure will have to be expended to limit collateral damage. The US will need to make a serious effort to restore real negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
That is a tough message, you might say. But what have the Democrats been saying these past few years but that the present administration has been consistently dishonest about Iraq? Unpalatable as it is, the voters might just appreciate the truth.
......................................
FT Syndication Service