Schumer, Boxer Mistake Mission in Iraq
I was disappointed to learn that a group of Democrats, including Senators Schumer and Boxer, boycotted the recent speech of the Iraqi Prime Minister. One of the most important points that Democrats have made about Iraq is that we need to understand precisely what our mission there is and when we have achieved victory. President Bush has been unfortunately vague about these objectives and so the war continues with no clear metrics still for what we hope to achieve. One objective which is very clear though is that we need to support democracy there and we need to do it out of the principle of democracy not out of the belief that a democratic Iraq will agree with the U.S. on every foreign policy issue.
While I strongly disagree with the Prime Minister’s comments on Israel and Hezbollah, I recognize that currently this is the overwhelming viewpoint in the Middle East. Yes, America must do everything it can to encourage the Prime Minister and his people to rethink this viewpoint. But, no America should not turn our backs (i.e. boycott) on those who merely express that viewpoint — that is, after all, democracy in action. And one point that the Bush administration has been admirably committed to is giving Iraq a true democracy and allowing people there to express their sentiments democratically. President Bush is right that democracy should be our end goal in Iraq and Schumer, Boxer, and several other Democrats were wrong to boycott this speech. We cannot expect Iraqis to believe that we are truly there to promote democracy if we seek to override any perspectives where we disagree with the Iraqi Prime Minister. This is a tense time in Iraq and symbols matter. The absence of two leading Democratic Senators at the speech of the Iraqi Prime Minister strikes me as sending the wrong signal at the wrong time.
Related posts:
[...] The more important argument, though, is the political one, the case that internal debate about the best course of action in fact helps the enemy. This view pervades much more than just these comments about why Israel hasn’t defeated Hezbollah decisively. It also explains why supporters of the administration’s policy in Iraq call well-intentioned people looking for alternative ways to seek America’s goals unpatriotic (this New York Times editorial inveighs against this practice). And it at the same time provides their own explanation for why their grand plans for positive transformation in the Middle East have not come to fruition: doubters in the U.S. undermined our success; we cannot conclude from the situation in the Middle East today that their vision was wrong, only that it was not properly carried out. Convenient. A useful dodge from the more likely explanation that the vision itself over-reached and that we were always unlikely to be able to “cause stability” in Iraq, no matter how unified the American effort and no matter how free a hand was given to the American military. This argument about when debate is appropriate and when it is not turns up in unexpected places, too. On this blog, Seth Green and David Isenberg both criticized Senators Boxer and Schumer for walking out on the Iraqi Prime Minister’s speech to Congress because of al-Maliki’s pro-Hezbollah remarks. Neither of my fellow bloggers agrees with al-Maliki’s support for Hezbollah, but they also felt that Americans should not criticize him for his position, since he is just expressing the will of the people of Iraq — an expression of democracy. And American Senators, they argue, should not debate the democratically ratified decisions of foreign governments’ policy-makers. That position strikes me as wrong for two reasons. [...]
Pingback on August 4, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Thans for your ignorant liberal democratic agendas, soon to get us all killed. Our enemies want your head too. duh. Wake up America!
Comment on April 18, 2007 @ 5:34 pm