Edwards on the use of force

John Edwards told the Council on Foreign Relations that he would revamp the Bush Doctrine (May 23, 2007):

We must be clear about when it is appropriate for a commander-in-chief to use force. As president, I will only use offensive force after all other options including diplomacy have been exhausted, and after we have made efforts to bring as many countries as possible to our side. However, there are times when force is justified: to protect our vital national interests...to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors...to protect treaty allies and alliance commitments...to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons...and to prevent or stop genocide.

The ellipses appear in the text -- I'm not editing his words.

In any case, Edwards seems to embrace just war principles.

Note that when asked how he would use force as President, candidate George W. Bush had a restrictive interpretation back in 2000. From the October 3 debate with Al Gore:

Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Readers may recall that candidate Bush was opposed to some uses of force -- for humanitarian purposes, especially, including nation-building. Bush often repudiated the so-called Clinton Doctrine.

Edwards would apparently bring back the Clinton Doctrine.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Attacks from the Left

A month ago, I blogged about "progressive internationalism," and noted that far left-leaning critics of John Kerry accuse him and other "mainstream" Democrats of having the same foreign policy goals as neocon Republicans. The differences, according to these critics, are cosmetic and provide only a thin veneer of legitimacy for a host of dubious practices.

Mark Hand, the author I criticized for making this claim, has responded on his blog, Press Action. His article is "The Vital Center Taunts the Disenfranchised Left."

I don't have time to rebut everything he writes -- and readers may want to review his original piece -- but I will advance several counter arguments.

My taunt, as it happens, was a simple repeat of Kerry's standard stump line directed at Bush: "Bring it on." It was nothing personal. Indeed, the blog post began with a note about Ralph Nader potentially drawing votes from Kerry in 2004. I really do not want to see that happen (again).

Regarding Hand's depiction of the Washington elite:

In the House, Democrats opposed the Iraq war resolution 126-81. In the Senate, it was 21-29 in the wrong direction. Still, it is misleading to pretend that this was a war wholeheartedly supported by the Democrats in Washington. Too many voted for it, but it was clearly not a consensus of the "vital center."

I'm quite confident John Kerry would not have gone to war in March 2003. Indeed, very few Democrats would have given the changed context. The inspectors were back in Iraq, had been met with complete cooperation, and had found nothing -- and were even reporting that Iraq had no nuclear program.

The "New Democrat" manifesto on "progressive internationalism" that Hand quotes is not the same one referenced in his earlier article that Kerry signed. I quoted the one Kerry signed verbatim in my reply. It predates the 2000 election and is hardly menacing or indicative of current debates.

The "new" manifesto on "progressive internationalism" is a document advanced by some Democrats, but the electoral platform has not yet been agreed (that occurs at the convention this summer) and there is no specific endorsement by Kerry to my knowledge. I tried to find such an endorsement when I blogged about this topic.

Hand quoted me accurately as saying that I can imagine carefully crafted humanitarian intervention to halt genocide (can't everyone?), but he misleadingly interprets that as my finding "little fault" with the Democrats generally.

Incidentally, just because the Bush administration is trying to reframe Iraq as humanitarian intervention (HI) doesn't make it a legal or legitimate case. Bush campaigned against the Clinton Doctrine in 2000 and sold the latest war in terms of WMD and proliferation. HI is associated with very specific international legal understandings. Iraq was not a nice place to live under Saddam Hussein, but he was not actively engaged in either genocide or crimes against humanity.

Hussein's past apparently included these crimes, but that authorizes international legal action -- not war, which is legal only when necessary to save those facing ongoing killings. Rwanda would have been the best contemporary use of force had it been used to save hundreds of thousands of lives.

I've been blogging since only September 2003 and I don't think many of my readers would call me a hawk. Hand asserts that I am hawkish because I endorse Kerry (now that he is the candidate) and mainstream Democrats. My readers know that I directed a lot more attention at Dean, Clark and even Edwards through the primary season (and even earlier). Dean and Clark were widely viewed as the anti-war candidates.

Finally, to be fair in Hand's overall assessment of the 2004 candidate, I think he has to note that John Kerry did play a major role in protesting the Vietnam War once he returned stateside -- and voted against the Persian Gulf War.

There are real differences between the Democrats and Republicans in 2004.

For example, did everyone notice the 50% increase in defense spending since the Bush era began?

Kerry, of course, is pretty clear left of the Clinton administration and I am hopeful that his presidency will turn out to be a lot better for the average American. His voting record is better than even Kucinich's by some measures (Kucinich often voted against abortion rights, for example) and I see no reason to elect Bush in 2004 by voting for Nader.

Progressive Internationalism

Ralph Nader's decision to run for President potentially exposes the Democratic nominee (most likely John Kerry) to political attacks from his left. Today, I'd like to address that problem.

Talk radio, of course, is buzzing about Kerry's anti-war past. Hosts and callers in that right-dominated media malign Kerry on a daily basis for his ties to the anti-war movement. If you don't believe me, just tune into a program for an hour.

In any case, the internet splits much more evenly between left and right. And it is apparent that some 'net writers on the left are worried that John Kerry is a closet super-hawk. A friend of mine (and regular reader) sent me a recent Counterpunch article that links Kerry to "progressive internationalism," and then charges that supporters of this worldview embrace the neo-conservative agenda for American foreign policy. Indeed, Mark Hand says the Democrats are more evil because they are less transparent about their plans:

Kerry and his comrades in the progressive internationalist movement are as gung-ho about U.S. military action as their counterparts in the White House. The only noteworthy difference between the two groups battling for power in Washington is that the neocons are willing to pursue their imperial ambitions in full view of the international community, while the progressive internationalists prefer to keep their imperial agenda hidden behind the cloak of multilateralism.

I think this charge is about as fair as the Fonda/Kerry doctored photo.

To begin, the author's title for Counterpunch is misleading: "Kerry Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On." Given the current context, and the immediate comparison to Bush, those not paying attention might think that the author accuses Kerry of ignoring the current war in Iraq. But to make the "move on" point, Hand quotes Kerry about the Vietnam war:

If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend.

Hand does not want to absolve the US or its veterans for allegedly committing war crimes in Vietnam. Fair enough. We could debate those points.

But I think Hand goes way overboard in his critique of Kerry. Here's what Hand has to say about Kerry's call for the country to "move on" from Vietnam:

"In this one passage, Kerry seeks to justify the millions of people slaughtered by the U.S. military and its surrogates during the twentieth century, suggests that concern about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam is no longer necessary, and dismisses the antiwar movement as the work of know-nothings.

This is ridiculous

Does anyone read "justification" for the war into Kerry's comment? Does Kerry now believe (because of new perspective) that the war was a just cause and that America blew it by failing to "win"? No, of course not. Kerry and Senator John McCain, recall, were leaders in the effort to normalize US relations with Vietnam. And Kerry still talks about the numerous mistakes the US made in Vietnam. Kerry worked for reconciliation and peace, which is what I think he means in calling for the US to "move on."

Moreover, I do not think Kerry is referring to the antiwar movement as "know-nothings." Obviously, the author has literally twisted Kerry's words to make them seem more inflammatory. People who know nothing of the war other than legend or ideology surely includes the very large portion of Americans too young to know much of anything about the war, except what they've learned from an occasional movie. And frankly, there are lots of people who lived through the war experience who are blinded by ideology -- on both the right and the left.

On the right, callers to talk radio say Kerry called Vietnam Vets war criminals. Hand says Kerry wants to "move on" from war crimes investigations. Kerry is taking unfair heat from both sides.

Reconciliation and peace: Move on. That's a meaningful third way.

At the base of Hand's claim about "progressive internationalism" is a document ("The Hyde Park Declaration") Kerry (and numerous other Democrats) signed at the urging of Bill Clinton in 2000. The policy part of the document is called "A New Agenda for the New Decade" and it includes a very short section on "Promoting Peace and Security At Home and Abroad."

If one reads the entire foreign policy section, it is difficult to get upset:

2. Build a Public Consensus Supporting U.S. Global Leadership

The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to "America First" isolationism. This collapse of the old Cold War consensus threatens America's ability to provide international leadership on both the economic and security fronts.

What's needed is a new foreign and security strategy for a new era. Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.

A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for U.S. global leadership. Yet the United States continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The United States must speed up the "revolution in military affairs" that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare. This also means undertaking a systematic overhaul of the military to create a force that is more flexible, integrated, and efficient.

Goals for 2010

A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues U.S. global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.

A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts.

Arguably, this pre-September 11 document was much more relevant to the 2000 Gore campaign than it is to the 2004 election. It is noteworthy that Democrats were worried about terrorism and WMD (as are about 90% of Americans) at that early date.

The 2000 document, by the way, has been updated by New Democrats (from the Democratic Leadership Council), and they do, as Hand says, use the phrase progressive internationalism" to describe their foreign policy aspirations. The DLC's website list Kerry as a member of the "New Democrat" coalition, but the DLC had lots of horses in the 2004 Presidential race: John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, and Joe Lieberman. I'd bet Kerry was at best the third choice of most DLC members.

In any event, it does seem fair to at least consider what the DLC would like a newly elected Democratic president to do in foreign policy. I've cherry-picked a few quotes to highlight some major contrasts with the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration:

By insisting on our right to act unilaterally, by ignoring intelligence assessments that conflicted with his desire to act, and by underestimating the resources needed to accomplish the missions, the president is putting America's battlefield gains in jeopardy. By focusing too much on U.S. military might as its main foreign policy instrument, the administration is abdicating its responsibility to fashion an effective, long-term political and economic strategy for changing the conditions in which Islamic fundamentalism breeds and from which new threats to our national security are most likely to arise. And by pushing ideologically motivated tax cuts and repudiating the nation's hard-won commitment to fiscal discipline, President Bush also is reducing our future capacity to act around the world and weakening American economic leadership and leverage.

Wesley Clark and other Democrats were offering this same critique throughout the campaign.

Here's more:

Instead of mobilizing our friends and isolating our enemies, this administration is isolating the United States from the rest of the world, squandering the good will and alliances built up over decades by successive U.S. leaders. American military strength is at an all-time high but our moral authority around the world is at an all-time low.

Does Hand disagree?

And finally, this:

Progressive internationalism stresses the responsibilities that come with our enormous power: to use force with restraint but not to hesitate to use it when necessary, to show what the Declaration of Independence called "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," to exercise leadership primarily through persuasion rather than coercion, to reduce human suffering where we can, and to create alliances and international institutions committed to upholding a decent world order.

OK, so the DLC still supports the "Clinton Doctrine" of humanitarian intervention. While I think it has to be carefully crafted, I can imagine using force to stop genocide or other crimes against humanity.

Is this the best the disenfranchised left has to offer?

Bring it on.

Humanitarian intervention?

As I've often noted, the 2000 Bush campaign went to great lengths to emphasize that the US should only use force when a US "vital interest" is at stake. Bush openly repudiated the so-called Clinton Doctrine, which was essentially the "promise" (Secretary of State Madeleine Albright hedged on its universality) of US action to stop genocidal acts:

"we can say to the people of the world, whether you live in Africa, or Central Europe, or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion, and it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it."

Now, of course, with the failure to find WMD in Iraq and the lack of "smoking gun" evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda, many Republicans are stressing the humanitarian side of the "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

This is just bunk.

Here's Vice President Cheney on "Meet the Press" just a few days before the war started:

MR. RUSSERT: The Los Angeles Times wrote an editorial about the administration and its rationale for war. And let me read it to you and give you a chance to respond: “The Bush administration’s months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion. First, it was to disarm Hussein and get him out. Then, as allies got nervous about outside nations deciding ‘regime change,’ the administration for a while rightly stressed disarmament only. Next, the administration was talking about ‘nation-building’ and using Iraq as the cornerstone of creating democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. And that would probably mean U.S. occupation of Iraq for some unspecified time, at open-ended cost. Then, another tactic: The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.”

What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

End of answer.

Russert, as Josh Marshall noted yesterday, went on to ask Cheney about the IAEA's then-fresh declaration that Iraq had no nuclear program. None.

Cheney said the CIA disagreed. Ha! This fails the laugh test. Look at CIA Director Tenet's recent speech about the evidence CIA provided pre-war:

We said Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and, probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.

Then, Cheney said that the IAEA didn't know what they were talking about:

I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree....We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past.

Of course, as Kenneth Pollack points out in the January/February Atlantic, it's actually very hard to hide a significant nuclear program and US intelligence agencies became incredibly dependent upon UN and IAEA inspectors through the 1990s.

The inspectors were the source of the key US intelligence!

This is all important because the President is now saying that everyone -- the Congress, the Clinton administration, the UN Security Council -- believed Iraq had WMD.

That would leave the administration blameless for starting an unprovoked war without a "vital national interest."

But the problem, as anyone can see, is that events changed dramatically from October/November, when the Congress and Security Council acted, to March, when Bush went to war, precisely because of the return of the UN and IAEA inspectors.

By March, the "mushroom cloud" fear was gone. Only the Bush people, who distrusted the inspectors, believed otherwise. Or ignored the evidence.

I'd like to hear some prominent Democrats say this pronto.