John Edwards takes his turn in Foreign Affairs, explaining his foreign policy and showing how it differs from that of President Bush and his rivals for the Democratic nomination. On the critically important questions of how to deal with Iraq, and how to respond to international crises, Edwards is aimless–saying one thing, and proposing to do the opposite. He calls the approach ‘smart power,’ but it sounds more like ‘hope for the best.’ Edwards goes wrong early on:
It’s not that Edwards is wrong in valuing close relations with other nations; it is that this is entirely the wrong prism through which to view the September 11 attacks. The question was not whether we would use them to improve relations with allies and rivals; it was whether the nation would act to make sure that such an attack was not repeated. In just the 5th paragraph of this lengthy piece, Edwards makes us seriously question whether he has the judgment to fill the office he seeks. In the next paragraph, he recasts history–crediting Ronald Reagan with building international respect for the US, and bringing down the USSR:
Ronald Reagan was criticized bitterly by Democrats for provoking the USSR and dividing U.S. allies, allegedly leading to a diminished respect for the US abroad–echoing modern criticisms of George Bush. His pursuit of missile defense, the placement of Pershing missiles in Europe, the labeling of the USSR as an ‘Evil Empire’–Democrats claimed that all these actions provoked the enemy, threatened relations with our allies, and would prolong the conflict with Communism. But if Edwards were running for president in 1984, he’d probably say the same thing of Reagan that he is saying of Bush today. Most of the rest of Edwards’ piece amounts to a collection of unfounded assertions and election slogans: ‘the war on terror is a bumper sticker,’ we’ve ‘walked into the terrorists’ trap,’ Bush is pushing ‘a policy of fear’–all stuff that we’ve heard many times before. Interestingly, Edwards compliments local law enforcement for breaking up plots like the attack planned at New York’s JFK, but he doesn’t compliment you know who for the prevention of any terror attacks in the US since 9/11. This paragraph seems the best summary of Edwards’ near-term plans:
So get out of Iraq, leave a ‘quick-reaction force’ in Kuwait, a military garrison at the Embassy in Baghdad, and enough troops in the region ‘to prevent a genocide.’ Then commence a ‘diplomatic offensive’ in Europe and the region. But if Edwards is concerned about a genocide, why does he advocate a withdrawal? Surely the U.S. risks fewer lives in Iraq by continuing the mission that exists today, as opposed to leaving ASAP and returning to prevent the genocide? Or does Edwards hope that the ‘diplomatic offensive’ will convince Iran or some other regional power to take charge of security? And in light of his plan for Iraq, can one really take this next paragraph seriously:
So in the case of Iraq, we should ignore military progress, leave the nation to fend for itself, and insert American troops in a full-blown civil war to prevent a genocide. But more broadly, we should practice ‘engagement and diplomacy’ to prevent crises before they develop. Taken together, this sounds like a ‘hope for the best’ approach. And indeed, when he describes his approach to Iran, it confirms it:
So military force is explicitly on the table, but we must not threaten it. In fact, we must never talk about it. Rather, we must make it clear that a nuclear-armed Iran is ‘unacceptable,’ and we must be prepared to talk as much as necessary–and even use bribes and sanctions–to make it clear. But if military action is ‘on-the-table,’ and a nuclear Iran is ‘unacceptable,’ then the necessary conclusion is that military force lies at the end of this chain of logic. Edwards however, indicates no willingness to initiate a strike; does he expect Israel to do the dirty work? If so, it’s worth spelling out. And even in a new century, with new threats, Edwards even gets caught on a liberal trope from the 1970s:
Now I don’t own any nukes myself, but I have no problem with my own government having them. It would even be OK under a (God forbid) President Edwards. Similarly, I see no reason to worry about nukes in the hands of Canada, Israel, the UK… and probably a few other nations. They continue to provide a deterrent value, and they may have tactical applications as well. It’s unfortunate that Edwards seems to be recycling rhetoric from the Mondale campaign. Edwards goes on at some length, but the piece as a whole doesn’t offer much of an indication of what to expect under President Edwards. One point conflicts with the next, and the entire piece seems a string of slogans designed to appeal to one or another constituency–a plan for election as opposed to a plan for government. If Edwards ends up as the Democratic nominee, it should provide plenty of fodder for his GOP challenger.
