Foreign Policy and Politics: Wartime Debate
The Brookings Institution hosted an ambitious event this past Monday titled “The Future of Iraq and Afghanistan.” The advertisement for the afternoon’s discussion ran as follows:
“Five years after the US-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, the debate on how the United States should proceed in the divided nation is as heated as ever. Although violence has declined, the US military remains in a fight for peace and stability while a divided Iraqi government has failed to reconcile crucial political and economic issues. Additionally, Afghanistan remains far from stable with a resurgent Taliban and rampant drug trade among numerous problems facing Hamid Karzai’s government.”
The Brookings strategy was twofold. First, seat a panel of credentialed subject experts, both academic and military. Let them deliver the narrative in an objective, critical fashion, and follow it up with sound policy advice for moving forward on both regional fronts.
Next, trot out the three foreign policy heads for the 2008 presidential campaigns. Rinse, and repeat.
The segue from the first to second panel should have been smooth, and perhaps politically provocative. I had expected the panel moderator to float the narrative and strategic conclusions generated by the previous panel into this makeshift candidate’s forum. In turn, each idea could be held up to the light, examined, and judged according to its political viability by the ideological rainbow of the presidential proxies.
It was not to be. The political surrogates didn’t take the bait. Maybe they didn’t hear the prior conversation, maybe they just didn’t have responses which folded neatly into the parameters of their established postures of Iraq and Afghanistan. Ultimately, the exercise was hollow because it highlighted the unwillingness of the candidates to reason, and make any movement on highly partisan, highly controversial, high points issues.
My intent is not to deliver blanket criticism of the candidate’s willingness to dynamically engage in foreign policy debates. To be able to affect the course of US foreign policy at a later date, the candidates must survive primary season. Winning votes must take priority. However, when general elections seasons arrives, hopefully we will see our candidates willing to take a chance and truly address each issue, instead of arguing from a carefully selected set of facts to bolster politically safe positions.
In the end, we can only hope both voters and candidates remember that the myriad issues of foreign policy we grapple with are dynamic, evolving scenarios, and that we must address them with a similar mental flexibility and openness of opinion. As one Iraq expert at Brookings writes, “ A fundamental calculus in Iraq is whether the continued commitment of American troops with a major diplomatic initiative to achieve a truce among warring parties can lead to a viable peace.” That calculus has not yet been made. The shifting geopolitics especially in Southern Iraq has precluded any such calculus. Let us at least acknowledge this fact, as the regional experts on the first panel have, and walk into the political discourse afterwards with open minds.
Related posts: