Note:
If the major goal is to prevent or minimize the loss of innocent
human life, then for the prospect of waging war on Iraq, we are "damned if we do, damned if we don't"
-- no wonder the
polls of the American public are so ambiguous, barring "a
smoking gun". Regardless, unless Mr. Hussein accepts the offer
of exile and his successor is more cooperative with the UN, war
seems inevitable; and terrorist backlash, over there and over
here, highly likely. God help us. The following was written in
response to a request to address more the domestic political
aspects.
As good Democrats, our first concern is the good
of our country.
As good Americans, we have two major concerns
with regard to the situation in Iraq. First, does Iraq pose a
real and present danger to our country and/or its allies, in
either the short- or long-term? Second, does any action we
consider advance the cause of freedom, which America was founded
to represent and defend?
With regard to the first point, given the U.N.
sanctions, no-fly zones, etc., Iraq does not seem to pose an
imminent threat to us or our allies, at least to any greater
degree than it has since it was driven from Kuwait. However, if
the U.N. inspectors or our Administration officials (as in the
upcoming State of the Union Address) unmistakably and undeniably
reveal forbidden weapons of mass destruction, they -- and the
lies that have hidden them from the international community -- would in and of themselves represent sufficient threat to
regional and national security (as to our oil supplies) to
warrant our military action, at least to remove them, preferably
but not necessarily with allies -- I believe that position is
consistent with majority American and Democratic leadership
opinion.
If we wage war on Iraq, with or without such
justification, Mr. Hussein will probably rightly fear for his
survival in power (which is undoubtedly motivating the North
Korean leadership to take its current, even more threatening and
disruptive actions); and he will unleash any and all weapons at
his disposal, undoubtedly including attacks on Israel, as to
broaden the conflict and split our Arab and Muslim allies from
us and perhaps even draw in Al Qaeda, with terrorist attacks
around the world, including within the United States. That
short- to long-term military and political danger should temper,
but not rule out, any military response to any real and present
danger.
In the long-term, the only righteous and prudent
course for the U.S. is to work with the U.N. -- we will find
ourselves in the position of being an international pariah, or
at the very least forced to "go it alone" in even just
causes in the future, if we hold other nations in contempt,
regardless of whether their positions are aligned with ours or
are even without merit. George Washington warned against "entangling alliances"
-- we must never allow our nation to
become habitually a friend or a foe to any other nation -- but
our nation itself would not have come into existence without the
help of allies overseas, each with their own motivations.
Finally, as to the cause of freedom -- the
rallying call of the previous Gulf War ("Liberate Kuwait")
and now what the President is appealing to our troops to defend
("Liberate Iraq") -- we must choose our battles wisely:
Billions of people in the world do not enjoy the levels of
freedom we (still) enjoy in this nation. Indeed, the Democratic
Party, by being more properly associated with issues of civil
rights (as by opposing the current excesses in the War on
Terror) is in a better position to defend the ideal of freedom
than the GOP. Historically, practicing effective diplomacy and
trade as well as setting a good example have helped America
liberate more nations than warfare: For example, most of Europe
and Latin America owe their liberation in the 19th Century to
the successful example of American democracy and industry.
In short, the polls reveal the American public,
as usual, to be committed to American ideals, tempered by
practical considerations: We should exercise force -- that is,
kill and be killed -- if and only if necessary to protect
America and her allies and/or to preserve and nurture our
ideals, as embodied within the Constitution; and if we do wage
war, we must give our troops our best material and moral support
as well as our best judgment -- the President, as Commander in
Chief, represents the people, the ultimate sovereign, whom we as
a Party must appeal to with intelligence and respect, the best
antidotes to inevitable emotional excesses (Along those same
lines, even though we who are "in the know" politically are
sophisticated enough to realize that many concerns expressed for
such ideas as "freedoms" are perhaps more truly "lust for
oil" or power, we as a mainstream Party will alienate more
people than we befriend, and undermine all our positions, if we
allow ourselves to embrace "iffy" speculations, as to
motives of political or foreign enemies that we cannot know let
alone prove for a certainty -- let the...[Far Left] or Far
Right engage in the politics of paranoia; we have more than
enough facts at our disposal to make our case).
Presently, the positions of the Democratic Party
-- no war without verifiable proof of Iraqi violation of
international law, and preferably no war without substantial
international support -- reflect the legitimate concerns of the
American public, perhaps even more so than the more prejudiced
and go-it-alone positions of the Administration, which is not
practicing civil liberties at home as well as it is preaching
them overseas. Those are messages worth communicating, not out
of some slavish pandering to polling but rather as being truly
and proudly representative of what is best in America.
Finally, as important as the issue of war and
peace is, the Democratic Party must focus more on domestic
issues, if it ever wishes to regain majority power over any
issues -- the GOP is on the verge of making a similar strategic
error, as it starts focusing on things like tax policy and
Medicare reform, where its policies are much less popular (and
practical) than its positions on issues of national security. We
can trump them on both accounts, if we listen carefully to the
legitimate and heartfelt concerns of the American public and
then address them sincerely and clearly.
The people want and need security: The Democrats
can provide that best by letting people know that we sincerely
care and will act accordingly -- heeding and following public
opinion, or educating and leading the electorate, as
appropriate.