Peter Beinart was editor of The New Republic in 2003 when the liberal magazine shocked many by coming out in favor of the Iraq war. Since then, Beinart and many of his TNR colleagues have said their original support was, if not wrong, certainly misguided. Beinart left the magazine earlier this year (although he does still serve as editor-at-large) to write “The Good Fight,” which hit bookstores this week. In it, Beinart explains how “liberals — and only liberals — can win the war on terror and make America great again.”
Q If Democrats are to shift public opinion away from favoring Republicans on issues of national security, is that more or less difficult to do in the middle of a war? Will Americans be hesitant to switch horses midstream, especially if the waters are rough and treacherous?
A They were in 2004, but not today. To extend the metaphor, the public now sees our current, Republican horses as drowning. The Democrats have their biggest opportunity since the 1970s, when Richard Nixon’s implosion handed them huge wins in 1974 and the presidency in 1976. They are likely to win again in the years to come. The question is whether Democrats have an alternative vision of their own so that when they do win, they don’t squander the opportunity, as they did then. That’s what my book, “The Good Fight,” tries to offer.
Q In your essay for the New Republic, “A Fighting Faith,” you took many anti-war advocates on the left to task for contributing to the Democrats’ demise in 2004. Yet, as 2008 approaches, the question for many Democrats is not “How can I be more hawkish?” but rather, “How do I explain away my vote in favor of the Iraq war?” Although Democratic dovishness may have hurt in 2004, will it help in 2008?
A My essay took to task MoveOn and Michael Moore for opposing the war in Afghanistan. It actually praised [Gen.] Wesley Clark and [Sen.] Bob Graham, who opposed the war in Iraq, but had aggressive visions for the war on terror. In 2008, having opposed the Iraq war will help a lot in the Democratic primary, somewhat less so in the general election. But beyond that, the issue will be: how do Democrats see the war on terror, and America’s role in the world, more generally. They’ll have to go beyond Iraq.
Q How about you: You’ve conceded that your initial support for the Iraq invasion was wrong. Do you think you need to explain away your rationale in favor of invading Iraq in the spring 2003? If so, how do you convincingly articulate (to paraphrase a 2004 mantra) “being for it before being against it?”
A I was wrong on Iraq for two reasons. First, I assumed Saddam had a nuclear weapons program. Most people believed that in late 2002. But I failed to recognize the evidence emerging from the weapons inspectors in early 2003 that suggested we were wrong, and he had no such program. I was too locked into that longstanding assumption. I also didn’t recognize how much our lack of international legitimacy for the war would undermine our legitimacy in Iraq — how much we needed the U.N. in Iraq to get them to trust us. As for flip-flopping, I think it’s better to be honest when you were wrong; it happens to all of us at some point or another, and this was a big mistake of mine. If you can’t recognize your mistakes, you can’t grow intellectually.
Q Hawkish Democratic senators such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman have both come under heavy attack from the left for their continued support of the war effort. Since so many of these on the Left are some of the Democratic Party’s most passionate and engaged members, is there a way to find common ground with them in order to avoid the in-fighting?
A In-fighting at this stage isn’t a bad thing, if it is about issues of principle. Parties unite when they nominate a presidential candidate. In the years before a presidential election, it’s good to argue, if you’re arguing about what you believe. My concern is that it’s still very hard to discern two competing visions in the current argument, like you had when the DLC and Jesse Jackson faced off in the 1980s. A lot of the attacks are about style — who is most in George W. Bush’s face. It’s hard to see where the big differences of principle are between Clinton, Lieberman and their critics. There’s a difference on Iraq, of course, but it’s hard to see how that translates into a different foreign policy vision for the future.
Q In order for Democrats to truly wrestle back the mantle of national security from Republicans, won’t they essentially need to wage a new, successful war in order to do so? Or can they do so within the scope of the existing “war on terror?”
A If Democrats show that they are making America safer, and making the world believe in America again, I think that will help a great deal. Americans want to be a beacon for the world again. If Democrats help get that back, and take the fight to the jihadists, they’ll help overcome their historical baggage.
Q Does the fact that some politicians on both sides of the aisle believe that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake take the issue away from Democrats as weapon in the upcoming elections?
A No. People blame Bush for the war, and will punish incumbents — especially Republicans — for it. That’s the nature of politics. If things go badly and you’re in charge, you get blamed. No matter what the other guys said.
Q The shadow of Vietnam still hangs over modern elections. Will Democrats — believed by many to be the “softer” party when it came to Vietnam — have to wait until Vietnam is too far removed to be a modern campaign issue in order to be taken seriously on national security?
A Democrats actually did a good job overcoming the Vietnam legacy under Clinton. Clinton acted aggressively and admirably in Kosovo, which was an internationally legitimate military intervention in a sovereign state — a model for the future. They lost that on 9/11, because the country rallied around Bush. But now he has squandered the GOP’s post-Vietnam advantage, so Democrats have a great opportunity.
Q You’re President of the United States. In which countries could you most effectively articulate a liberal case for a U.S.-led invasion?
A None right now, with perhaps the exception of Darfur, if it was a multilateral effort with help from the region. The point isn’t to look for countries to invade. It’s to understand that when circumstances emerge that threaten American security, or create some overwhelming moral imperative, we have to act. As we saw in Rwanda, or Kosovo or on 9/11, those circumstances can come very quickly.
