Amazon.com Widgets

As featured on p. 218 of "Bloggers on the Bus," under the name "a MyDD blogger."

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Edwards On The Offense

I guess the consensus is that John Edwards didn't have a very good debate in New Hampshire, because he was the attack dog and he "didn't look Presidential." I don't agree. I think that conclusion has been drawn because he dared to utter the great unmentionable, something not even Dennis Kucinich feels comfortable enough to say.

Ed Kilgore remarks "Edwards' efforts to separate himself from Clinton and Obama by deriding the 'war on terror' (accurate as it is with respect to the terminology involved) is politically perilous, to say the least." This is actually what I think is the most significant aspect of Edwards' decision to take this bit of sloganeering on.

He had the balls to say what everyone knows is true (but only parenthetically) and is too afraid to say and ... he wasn't struck down by lightning [...] For years and years this kind of dogma has built-up among Bush administration critics that None May Say The Obvious about the "war on terror" lest they face dire, dire political consequences, but a party that doesn't have sufficient confidence in its national security chops to offer a really banal criticism of the Bush administration is bound to end up projecting that insecurity to voters in a way that's much more damaging than taking a 48 hour hit as the White House borrows the Clinton campaign's talking points.


That's right on so many levels. Barack Obama obviously got it, as within a day he released a statement acknowledging that the world is a more dangerous place thanks to the actions of this Administration, and that the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism around the world. It's not exactly where Edwards is, but it's certainly closer than Hillary and her borrowed talking point of "safer but not yet safe." This led to a New York Times story on the issue, where the Clinton camp decided to narrow the issue to domestic security, particularly in New York City, since 9/11. But that's really unimaginative thinking, and represents a desire to maintain the foreign policy status quo by omitting it from the debate. I agree with Simon Rosenberg:

I have to admit that I am not sympathetic to Hillary's position. With DHS a mess, our military degraded, our standing in the world diminished, the Middle East in much greater turmoil than prior to 9/11, terrorism around the world on the rise, Bin Laden still on the loose, Iran moving towards nuclearization, our great ally Israel weakened, international institutions like the UN and the World Bank under assault, climate change ignored, Russia slipping back into an aggressive autocracy.....are we really safer today? Is America and the world really better off as a result of the Bush years?


(By the way, check this story out by Justin Rood if you want to learn more about the Department of Homeland Security, a dumping ground for the worst hack political appointees and fundraisers imaginable. This is who Hillary's banking on to keep America safe?)

But let me get back to Edwards, who is far beyond where Hillary or even Obama is on this issue. He outlined a plan to fight terrorism today that immediately states that George Bush has used the fear of terrorism to push forward an ideological agenda that has resulted in an increasingly dangerous world, and that we have to get past bumper-sticker slogans and start thinking about how to manage this threat if we want to reverse the situation. Here are the steps:

As president, Edwards will take the following six key steps to shut down terrorism both its effects and its root causes. The Edwards plan will:

Rebalance our force structure for the challenges of the new century to ensure the force structure of our military matches its mission. Edwards believes we need to ensure that our force structure is well-equipped for the challenges of the new century. We must have enough troops to rebuild from Iraq; to bolster deterrence; to decrease our heavy reliance on Guard and Reserve members in military operations; and to deploy in Afghanistan and any other trouble spots that could develop.

Ensure our intelligence strategy adheres to proven and effective methods and avoids actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law.

Hold regular meetings with top military leadership. Edwards will also reinstate a basic doctrine of national security management—military professionals will have primary responsibility in matters of tactics and operations, while civilian leadership will have authority in all matters of broad strategy and political decisions.

Create a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, to stabilize weak and failing states.

Re-invest in the maintenance of our equipment so our strategy against terrorists is as effective as possible.

Implement a new National Security Budget that will include all security activities by the Pentagon and the Department of Energy, and our homeland security, intelligence, and foreign affairs agencies.


Most of this, like refurbishing equipment and re-jiggering the budget and reinstating the civilian/military decision-making process and outlawing torture and not using the Guard and Reserve as Army Pt II, is just common sense that this idiotic Administration has strayed from. But it's the fundamental approach that really appeals to me. This "Marshall Corps" is a great way to restore our image in the world and make fundamentalist radical Islam look far worse by comparison. And it's lines like this that shows Edwards has the best understanding of how the past six years have transpired: "Today, we know two unequivocal truths about the results of Bush's approach -- there are more terrorists and we have fewer allies."

I believe this vision by Edwards is similar to what Fareed Zakaria laid out in a much-discussed Newsweek article on how to restore America's place in the world. An excerpt:

We must begin to think about life after Bush [...] In 19 months he will be a private citizen, giving speeches to insurance executives. America, however, will have to move on and restore its place in the world. To do this we must first tackle the consequences of our foreign policy of fear. Having spooked ourselves into believing that we have no option but to act fast, alone, unilaterally and pre-emptively, we have managed in six years to destroy decades of international good will, alienate allies, embolden enemies and yet solve few of the major international problems we face [...]

The problem today is not that America is too strong but that it is seen as too arrogant, uncaring and insensitive. Countries around the world believe that the United States, obsessed with its own notions of terrorism, has stopped listening to the rest of the world.


(Read the whole thing, though Zakaria is somewhat establishment, it's fantastic.)

This is exactly equivalent to what Edwards has been saying, and it's what I think he would work to change as President. We know what the Republicans think; they may be running from Bush on some issues, but on foreign policy they want to be Bush on steroids. Chief among them is Rudy Giuliani, and look what Edwards had to say about him today.

"If Mayor Giuliani believes that what President Bush has done is good, and wants to embrace it and run a campaign for the Presidency saying, 'I will give you four more years of what this president has given you,' then he’s allowed to do that. He’ll never be elected President of the United States, but he’s allowed to do that."


The goal of terrorism is to sow fear. If we succumb to it and use all of our energies to react to it, we have changed America and given the terrorists their victory. John Edwards appears to be the only candidate brave enough to call bullshit on the entire operation, the only one prepared to engage with the world on his own terms rather than on the terrorists'. Chris Matthews picked up on this today on Hardball as it relates to Giuliani, leading to this fantastic commentary...

"I agree with what Fareed Zakaria wrote in Newsweek this week, which is that terrorism isn't bombs and explosions and death... terrorism is when you change your society because of those explosions... and you become fearful to the point that you shut out immigration, you shut out student exchanges, you keep people out of buildings ... and begin to act in an almost fascist manner because you're afraid of what might happen to you, and that's when terrorism becomes real, and frighteningly succesful. That's what I believe, and that's why I question the way Giuliani has raised this issue. He raises it as a specter, and in a weird way, he helps the bad guys."


But what Matthews hasn't seen is that John Edwards is on the opposite pole, unwilling to let America be drowned in fear. This is why, at this stage, I have to announce my support for him.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

|