Developing a Democratic Foreign Policy Vision
Just one week after the Democratic Party’s landslide election victory, internal party battles over House leadership positions are already calling into question Nancy Pelosi’s ability to lead effectively, particularly on foreign policy issues. Pelosi used strong-arm tactics in an effort to convince congressional Democrats to support John Murtha for the post of House Majority Leader, over the person backed by most House Democrats, Steny Hoyer. (The Democratic caucus elected Hoyer to the post today.) Pelosi reportedly supported Murtha for two reasons: 1) she has a long-standing feud with Hoyer; and 2) she backs Murtha’s call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. These reasons are similar to those attributed to her intention to name someone other than Harman chair of the intelligence committee: 1) she and Harman do not get along; and 2) she thinks Harman has not criticized the Bush administration sharply enough for its intelligence policies.
Pelosi’s campaigns against Hoyer and Harman suggest she might not have the interpersonal skills, tolerance, and judgment to manage a diverse caucus of some 230 House Democrats. But I’ll focus here on the implications of these choices for the Democratic Party’s approach to foreign policy. (I discussed the choice for House intelligence committee chair in a previous post.)
Last week’s election results clearly represented a rejection by the American people of the Iraq war. The results seem to have led some Democrats to criticize the war more sharply and may have encouraged Pelosi to back Murtha publicly. But most Americans favor establishing a timetable for the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, rather than withdrawing immediately, as advocated by Murtha. Immediate withdrawal would increase the likelihood of a sectarian bloodbath in Iraq that is more deadly than the current civil war in that country, violent as that war is (yes, there is a civil war occurring in Iraq today). Precipitous withdrawal would also damage America’s credibility and embolden Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The extraction of U.S. forces from Iraq should not be America’s only goal at this point. We must balance that very important goal with the equally important goals of bringing an end to the sectarian conflict within Iraq and making Iraq more secure. I don’t have a magical formula for accomplishing that balancing act, but we must recognize its necessity. At the very least, enough U.S. forces need to stay in Iraq to help strengthen and train Iraqi security forces.
Beyond the Iraq war, Democrats must articulate a sound overall vision for foreign policy. Today the most prominent Democratic foreign policy positions are the calls for a change of direction in Iraq and opposition to trade agreements that threaten American jobs. Both of these positions are politically popular, but as Shadi Hamid points out on Democracy Arsenal today, they do not constitute a foreign policy vision. As Democrats take control of Congress and the 2008 presidential election gets under way, leading Democrats must advocate forward-looking foreign policy positions that go beyond the rejection of Bush administration policies. Democrats should regularly criticize the Bush administration for its woeful mismanagement of the war, other misguided policies, and abuses of executive power. But they should also explain how they propose to meet the major challenges posed by violent jihadism, nuclear proliferation, the rise of China, globalization, dependence on fossil fuels, and human-induced climate change. As North Korea and Iran continue to move forward with their nuclear programs, Democrats must also recommend feasible strategies for stopping those programs without going to war.
The Democratic Party has a strong tradition of progressive internationalism, which emphasizes that America is most prosperous and secure when it leads efforts to resolve international disputes; advances freer trade; forges alliances with like-minded states; strengthens global institutions; and, when necessary, uses its military to protect peace, democracy, and human rights. Groups such as the Truman National Security Project and the Princeton Project on National Security are articulating innovative proposals to update progressive internationalism for the challenges facing America today. (Full disclosure: I’m an associate of the Truman Project and have assisted the Princeton Project.) Only by formulating a compelling alternative to the administration’s foreign policy approach will Democrats be able to seize the mantle long held by Republicans as the party that Americans trust most to protect national security. More importantly, the implementation of a smart and principled platform of progressive internationalism will help the United States achieve its central foreign policy goals.
Related posts:
In quantitative terms what is your definition of “landslide election victory”. Or is your statement a representation of your opinion instead of fact?
“Last week’s election results clearly represented a rejection by the American people of the Iraq war.” – sounds more like a plausible interpretation of the results than a decisive outcome. To “clearly represent” you would need the results of an election that asked voters specifically to vote on: “Do you support the Iraq War” vs. “Do you not support the Iraq War”. Additionally use of “the” American people tends to suggest a majority of Americans. You may want to check voter stats (# of eligible voters that actually voted for instance) prior to using terms that suggest a majority of all Americans support or reject a particular issue.
Semper Fi
Comment on November 16, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
Does Nancy Pelosi know about the Princeton Project? Have you talked with her about it? What is her opinion? (Has she ever heard about “Across the Aisle?”)
If nothing else, the Princeton Project offers a very good basis for starting discussion about what needs to be done.
Good luck.
Comment on November 16, 2006 @ 9:34 pm
It seems to me that the election was lost more because of corruption and a perception of moral degeneracy than the war. I think few of us can come to grips about what we think about than Iraq.
There is a huge gulf in the range of people between those who want us out yesterday and those who believe that we will win something which cannot be won — the love and support of the Iraqi people. (Wait, there is no Iraqi people, only blood thirsty sects murdering each other. Something they did long before Saddam who, at least, stabilized things.) This will never happen.
Because of the loss of so very many friends — I survived with a price — in Viet Nam, I want all the boys and girls home now.
We cannot effect any change. Though it may be unpopular to say so, getting out of Iraq tomorrow would only hasten the rise of the inevitably murderously corrupt regime that is characteristic of our Semitic cousins, and would, perhaps, be the best possible thing that could happen.
Doesn’t anyone understand how many Iraqis we have caused to die for a future more bleak than the present.
All in a dream: since they have never experienced combat (much less any sort of deprivation), send your commander-in-chief and his #2 to Iraq for a year….
Comment on November 16, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
In response to a few of the questions raised by Kaizen and R. Osman:
1) I called the election a landslide because Democrats won 29 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate, without losing a single seat of their own. A gain of 35 congressional seats is a huge victory because incumbents today have big advantages stemming from their fundraising ability and the way congressional districts are drawn. Democrats also made large gains at the state level, taking over six governorships and control of several state legislatures.
2) While voters did not vote directly on the Iraq war, exit polls indicated that most Americans oppose the war and that many Americans voted for Democrats primarily because of their opposition to the war.
3) I don’t know if Nancy Pelosi is familiar with the Princeton Project, but I know the Princeton Project codirectors, Anne-Marie Slaughter and John Ikenberry, have been meeting with people on Capitol Hill to spread the word about the Project.
Comment on November 17, 2006 @ 12:32 pm