Democrats and the Iraq War

Andrew Jackson battles the "money power": But Jackson is not on the ballot for 2008

Ending the Iraq War - or, more precisely, ending American participation in the Iraq War - is the number one political issue for me right now, as it is for a majority of voters. And to me it's self-evident that preventing the Cheney-Bush administration from expanding that war to Iran is very much a part of that. That's why it's shocking to me when I see the "antiwar" radical rightwinger Ron Paul proposing to treat a hostile action by Iran like Kennedy treated the Cuban Missile Crisis.

At least none of the Democratic candidates are suggesting anything that crazy. Kennedy made the decision that he had to be willing to take the risk of starting an all-out war with the Soviet Union over the nuclear missiles in Cuba. Suggesting that would be an appropriate response to some hostile move by Iran is way, way beyond stating that "all options are on the table" as a euphemism for military action in general. Except maybe for Dennis Kucinich, who says he wants to remove warfare as a tool of American foreign policy altogether, I don't think any of the Dems will say categorically that they would never take military action against Iran. Nor should they. But they also shouldn't get sucked into repeating the administration's "all options are on the table" mantra in the current situation. They need to show some leadership in building political opposition to a preventive-war attack on Iran.

I was happy to see that Joe Biden, who I would say has the worst position on the Iraq War of the Democratic candidates (encourage ethnic-religious partition), said that he would consider Bush attacking Iran as an impeachable offense.

But as critical an issue as I hold the Iraq War to be, when I think about the Democratic choices at this point, I find myself reflecting on the variety of issues that go into my thinking about the possibilities.


The choice will be largely made by the time California's primary takes place. But if I could vote in New Hampshire, I would be inclined at this point to vote for Chris Dodd, because he's taken a forthright position on withdrawing from Iraq and also against Cheney's unlimited domestic eavesdropping program. Primaries are a major way in which the Democratic base can express our preferences. And I would be inclined to support him for those reasons.

Of the big three - Clinton, Obama and Edwards - John Edwards is definitely my preference. None of the three have shown the kind of leadership we need against a war on Iran so far. But Edwards has taken the strongest position of the three on withdrawing American troops. He's also emphasizing class issues (I know by Establishment manners we're not supposed to call them class issues, but I'm a Jacksonian Democrat) in a stronger way than Clinton or Obama. And he had the good sense to straightforwardly oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment whose purpose wHe strikes me as the most clearly pro-labor of the three.

On the other hand, I'm not at all thrilled about his recent comment that he wants some Republicans in his Cabinet. (Edwards: I'll Include Republicans In My Cabinet by Eric Kleefeld TPM Election Central 12/04/07.) The Democrats just can't seem to give up this mirage of partisan harmony lying just on the horizon. I don't recall hearing Mitt Romney, Benito Giuliani or Mike Huckabee promising to put Democrats in their Cabinet.

Kucinich takes the most consistently, obviously liberal positions of the group. But I actually think his general foreign policy outlook lacks the kind of substance we need. The idea of establishing a Department of Peace sounds cute, but it's just a gimmick. The whole foreign and military portions of our government should be genuine peace departments. And his notion of removing warfare as an instrument of foreign policy won't be on the agenda until the day Jerry Brown's ideas seem totally mainstream. Don't get me wrong: if Brown were in the race he would be my favorite, no question. I would vote for him over Gore, even.

Kucinich's wife's comment that he would be willing to run on a ticket with the far-right, anti-labor isolationist Ron Paul also makes me really wonder about Kucinich's seriousness.

Speaking of Gore, I've given up the fond hope that he might jump into the race. The Scalia Five deprived us of a potentially great President.

I'll be happy to support any of the big three as the Democratic candidate against the Republicans, though. I'm worried that the Dems' use of the phony "character" issue against each other may be playing too much into the Republican and mainstream media standard stereotypes, that Republican candidates are manly men and Democrats are flaky flip-floppers because of their lack of "character". Steadfast support of sick, sadistic torture being a sign of principled masculinity for the Republican Party and a depressingly large portion of the punditocracy in our degraded political state.

I don't think the notion of leaving residual combat troops in Iraq for blitzkrieg attacks against "Al Qa'ida" or even for training is realistic. Unless there is some radical change in Iraqi progress toward political reconciliation, American withdrawal is going to be an all-or-nothing proposition in practice. I don't like the "triangulating" that goes on around this among the Democrats and I wouldn't want to underestimate the importance of looking realistically at the need for full withdrawal.

But I also think it's a secondary factor to their commitment to getting the US out. I think all the big three are serious about that, and in practice that will mean adopting full withdrawal, of necessity.

More handwriting on the wall in that regard comes in this report in the Australian Herald-Sun, Sadr tells Bush to get out of Iraq 12/04/07:

RADICAL Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr overnight blasted US President George W. Bush for signing a deal with Baghdad that ensures a long-term American military presence in Iraq.

"I say this to the evil Bush - leave my country," Sadr said in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

"We do not need you and your army of darkness," he said.

"We don't need your planes and tanks. We don't need your policy and your interference. We don't want your democracy and fake freedom. Get out of our land."

Sadr's salvo comes a week after the US president and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced a deal ensuring a long-term presence of US forces in the country.

This doesn't mean an anti-American Sadrist uprising will begin any day. But it's a dash of fresh water in the face to all the phony optimism about the success of The Surge. And a reminder that the idea of permanent bases and even a partial-pull as discussed by Dems are both avoiding the reality of what needs to be done - though the permanent bases idea is far more out of touch. (On the latter, see Permanent Bases in Iraq? How About Permanent Civil War? by William Arkin, Early Warning blog 11/27/07.)

Tags: democratic party, democrats, iran war, iraq war

| +Save/Share | |