Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Out of Iraq?

Ivo Daalder wonders why the Bush Administration seems so disconnected from American public opinion on Iraq. Some readers argue for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, others say that would be abandoning an important Democratic movement. While the Duke believes President Bush has blundered badly in Iraq (and the Duke would make many, many changes), he has not heard a convincing, realistic alternative to staying the course. The Duke posted this reply:

This debate raises an interesting question from the domestic policy discussion areas: Is it better to oppose without offering concrete alternatives, thereby maintaining unity, or is it better to propose constructive alternatives through messy internal debate. The Duke is sympathetic to the "unity" of opposition on domestic issues, but he would argue -- particularly with regard to Iraq -- that singlemindedness becomes dangerous simplemindedness when it comes to foreign policy.

Why?

  • First, it is more difficult to predict foreign policy outcomes. For example, we know the consequences of unified opposition to changing Social Security (precious little for decades). But our level of certainty for any particular Iraq strategy is much, much lower. The complexity of foreign policy predictions creates significant risks for "simple opposition", both the risk of being wrong and the risk of failing to create better proposals because debate was stifled.
  • Second, it is harder to build public support for foreign policy than domestic policy. If you win the debate, you might get stuck with foreign policy position that is unworkable. The public has much less familiarity with foreign policy than, say, health care or education, and the public attention span is much shorter when it comes to foreign policy. This "public support risk" is dangerous because when Democrats return to power, there will be much less public support for anything approaching a sustainable alternative. Frankly, a demagoguic foreign policy (on the left or the right) is much more worrisome to the Duke than demogoguery on issues like taxes, abortion, or gay marriage.

Having said all of that, the Duke does not (yet) have a comprehensive proposal on Iraq. However, he is convinced that those arguing for a "withdrawal trigger" place too little weight on the significant national security interest in a stable Iraq.

1 Comments:

At 7:07 PM, Blogger The Duke said...

Here's a post that outlines some of the risks of Bush's unilateralism. The Duke added ...

Identifying the costs of unilateralism is a useful exercise at which most Bush critics have failed miserably. Too often foreign policy elites argue for policy actions as if everyone with a brain should implicitly understand the costs of unilateralism, the benefits of coalition, and the value of diplomacy.

To paraphrase James Carville, "It's your security, stupid." Why is unilateralism bad? Because it makes us less safe. Why is a coalition good? Because we it will cost less with fewer casualties. Why is diplomacy useful? Because deft diplomacy strengthens our military leverage and puts American lives at risk only as a last resort. Bottom line -- Bush's loner approach is making the world a more dangerous place for Americans at home and abroad. In Afghanistan, North Korea, and Latin America, Bush's policies have put America at risk. And even though it's a good thing Saddam is gone, we're botching the follow-through. If you want to be safer and more secure, support a change.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com