...a progressive, winning foreign policy has to balance a bunch of issues that are brushed aside equally by realists and liberals; by...

Conventional political wisdom says that a national candidate cannot allow herself to be successfully accused of being weak on defense. While it is true that Joe Sixpack can be aroused to want to fight the bad guys out there, he can also become aroused to resent America's costly involvement in the affairs of other countries. If the Democrats were politically smart, they would push a Neo-isolationist, or military-isolationist foreign policy for it's appeal to Average Americans.

No need for America to become totally isolationist, only military isolationist. Continue to interact with the rest of the world, trade with anyone who wants to trade, carry out acts of kindness and compassion when other countries are in need, etc. We can return to the role of the Nice Guy Gentle Giant who is extremely reluctant to get involved in any disputes that other countries are having with each other, so long as we are able to continue to enjoy our freedom within our borders.

We can lead by our example, show other big powers how to earn the appreciation of the rest of the world by not using our considerable power. Yes, we should continue to keep ourselves so incredibly strong, militarily, that no other country would ever be tempted to invade us, but never use that power to influence affairs in other countries, if that interference could end up making us the enemies of people living on the other side of the planet.

Yep, it could be done.

Israel: Time For Soul-Searching

“Don’t fight neo-conservatives forces on their chosen cramped terrain of terrorism, pessimism and fear.”

It might be beneficial to have a closer look at the debate as the neocons have framed it. What does a war on terrorism mean? So long as our President and enough others in politics and the mainstream media say we have a war on terrorism, I suppose we have such a war, whatever it means.

Terrorism is a tactic.
Strategy is a plan of action or a policy.
Goal is desired results.

So, do we have a war on a tactic?
Do we have a war on everyone who uses terrorism as a tactic?
Do we know who, specifically, “they “ are over there?
Do we know where “over there” is?

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Have we offered to have a dialogue with those who use violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims to see what their aims are? Or do our leaders just tell us to assume that they want to come over here and terrorize us, so we better keep them over there. Whoever they are;wherever there is.

Bush/Cheney/Rove are not willing to answer these questions. They just want to have us fear “them” so they can continue to use the “war on terror” mantra as their tactic in pursuit of their political aims. (recently aided by Rumsfeld)

“ ...so far the single most important is to encourage Democrats, progressives and liberals to re-define the terms of the debate”

The Boogie Man will get you if you buy into the Bush/Cheney/Rove fear-mongering. We must get rid of the Boogie Man before we can have a rational debate. But as any kid knows, you can’t get rid of the boogie man under the bed. Who says Rove is not a propaganda genius?

Democratic politicians need to be brave enough to come right out and say the BushCo war on terror is a Boogie Man.Roosevelt was astute enough to say "all we have to fear is fear itself ". We need a real leader, a Statesman, to step forward and say it now --- against the Boogie Man. The kids won't believe him; hopefully there are enough adults who will speak out and join this fight against the Boogie Man.

>> no other country would ever be tempted to invade us,

you're joking right?

no country has ever been tempted to invade us.
no country is even talking about invading us.

so what the hell are you talking about?

Yes, but I think only after a while, after some period of time has passed when we start to become accustomed to staying out of the disputes of other countries.

That is to say, we will probably have to settle for being "over-defended" for a while in order to reassure Joe Sixpack that he is not vulnerable to even the monsters of Republican imaginations.

You're right that simply having the military infrastructure to "project power" makes war highly likely, but I'm hoping that we can first change the concept of "Defense" in Joe Sixpack's mind. When we do that, we can change his perception of the Republican Party. Once we've done that, then it should be easier to start talking about unwinding some of the 'suddenly unnecessary' expenditures in the military's budget.

"Iran: Iran is not a credible threat to our country. It has reason to believe it is threatened by a neighbor, Israel,"

What, precisely, is the threat that Israel represents to Iran? Its very existence?

Your highminded proscriptions fall apart as soon as they hit the reality of a world in which Iran funds and arms a terrorist organization which has hijacked a third country in order to wage ongoing, low-level war against Israel-- yet you define that situation as Israel representing a threat to Iran.

Finally, someone seems to get it. The problem with foreign policy makers in the last half of the 20th C, and these years of the 21st, is that they make their living by promotion of "isms" and the more complicated it becomes the more they're needed to interpret it. And how did they come to make a living out of it? Lobbying groups pay them to obscure and complicate and divert and manipulate public opinion. George Washington certainly knew this - "as avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the art of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils?"

What did Washington have to say about involving ourselves in foreign entanglements? "The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and to its interest."

As Washington pointed out, "antipathy in one nation against another, disposes each more readily to offer insults and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur."

Washington told us the best way to live in relative harmony with other nations, which is what most Americans want: "the great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith."

Of course, God forbid, with all of our patriotic humbuggery of the "intent" of our forefathers, when universal civil rights are extended constitutionally, we should actually accept advice from the old country bumpkins...it isn't nuanced enough I suppose.

Peace through strength.  To quote Theodore Roosevelt "speak softly and carry a big stick". 

We should not be isolationist.  We need to be fully engaged, and take a leadership role, in the world through international bodies like the UN and NATO.  We should try to prevent wars and armed conflicts through direct diplomacy with any/all sovereign nations or in multilateral diplomacy when applicable.  Spread the benefits of the global economy though peace.  The less wars there are the more prosperous all countries will become, including the US.  We will not use our military might against any other sovereign nation in an unprovoked manner but reserve the right to use military force when attacked (i.e. Afghanistan: warranted; Iraq: unwarranted).  Respect and uphold the international "rule of law" where we honor treaties like the Geneva Convention.

That is my vision...

The danger is that any foreign policy when set in stone, more likely to happen than not, inevitably ends up trapping its proponents. A country gets lodged in the trap of its own propaganda.

Democracy promotion in Iraq may have had a nice ring to it, but resolving the communal securiity problems that divide Iraqis and reaching a stable ethnic compromise should have been the first order of business. Making a "democratic election" the first order of business has, in fact, only made the existing divisions greater and more virulent.

Why is it considered isolationism if America declines to interfere in the domestic arrangements of other nations?

No, I don't consider that isolationism at all.  What you seem to be describing is a policy of non-intervention which I also like.

What should be the concern of any Democrat on foreign policy is (please forgive my triteness) the betterment of humanity. As American Statesmen of course the interests of Americans have to be considered with priority in any consideration of policy and politicians’ policies have to be palatable in rhetoric to voters who range from ultra altruistic to the profoundly selfish if the policies are to survive any length of time.

Unfortunately pleasing (to American voters) rhetoric often describes policies that are not in humanity’s best interest and promote short-term American highs at the expense of more permanent American health.

One thing that appears certain is that permitting the neocons to continue to dictate policy will lead to perpetual fiascos for the United States and the rest of the world. So Democrats seeking office have to get into a position to make some changes even if those changes are incrementalized by necessary bluster in order to get the votes of the ignorant.

Those of us who are not seeking office must actively attempt to educate the public at large using direct dialog so that people who have little or no interest in researching themselves are weaned off of jingoistic catch-phrases. The trick is to not alienate these people by appearing arrogant; conversations have to be meaningful, thoughtful and respectful (like not referring to these people as ignorant like I just did).

Iraq is a good example of a situation where, as a politician, no matter what a Democrat says they are screwed. The cost of actually fixing Iraq would probably bankrupt us. Perhaps we could quickly asses the cost of developing a mature industrial economy in Iraq over a short period of time. It might go something like this:

The cost of a credible victory strategy in Iraq with victory being defined as establishment of a functioning democracy with a prosperous market economy, minority protections and a normal expectancy of average individual safety:

Troop level required to put a company-sized unit in every town and precinct in Iraq…….......................………………..X,XXX,XXX

Additional troop levels needed to replace contractors for essential logistics with traditional and proven-effective-in-other-wars quartermaster units throughout Iraq……................................................….XX,XXX

Cost of building from scratch an industrial shipyard in the port of Basrah with local employees……....................................…$X,XXX,XXX,XXX

Cost of building from scratch a railroad infrastructure that connects all the major cities in Iraq ……….…….….$XX,XXX,XXX,XXX

Cost of connecting Iraq by rail to Isfahan on the east, Amman and Jerusalem on the west, the gulf states and Riyadh on the south and Istanbul and Europe on the north…………....$XXX,XXX,XXX

Cost of building, from scratch a steel mill near the city of Baghdad with sufficient production to supply the rail projects and shipyards………................................$X,XXX,XXX,XXX

Cost of building other middle market industries using local labor sufficient to support these projects......$X,XXX,XXX,XXX

Cost of scrapping the current Iraqi constitution and reorganizing the politics into a presidential government with regularly scheduled elections and a two-party political structure in which all politicians are required to chose between a Socialist (leftist) party and a Liberal (rightist) party disassociating politically with faiths, tribes or other fundamental identity parties……....................….INTANGIBLE

Restoring non-criminal Ba’ath Party members…........NEGLIGIBLE

I’m sure others could think of other costs.

Once this assessment is complete we could inform the public of the cost of possible victory in Iraq in a way that shows decisiveness and positivity while pasting the current strategy as indecisive. We need to inform the public that getting out now is ugly but it gets worse every moment you put it off. Then challenge them. Say, “If you want victory we’re with you. It’s going to cost at least (Insert realistic figure here, ere on the side of expensive). We need (insert realistic figure here) servicemembers. We’ll buy war bonds and instill a draft and commit to two years at which point we will have either won or lost and we'll begin leaving at that date. But keep in mind people, in order for Iraq to succeed it must have healthy heavy industry which means that it will consume its own oil and compete with us for finished goods sales. It may never agree with us geopolitically because at the point of any victory the motions of Iraq will be determined by Iraq’s people rather than by us according to their needs as they see them. Of course our other option is to profusely apologize to the Iraqi people for our failures and the price they had to pay for it, wish them the best of luck, and let them grope forward while we concentrate on the original problem in Afghanistan. If you, the American people help us to authorize the bonds and the draft, then we’ll pursue a victory in Iraq. If not, then we’ll know the choice you made. But we will not continue this embarrassing muddling about in which the only decision is a refusal to learn which is costing us our image, our pride and our most loyal sons and daughters simply for the benefit of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago.” Or words to that effect.

As for Iran, if it really wants the bomb it will get it no matter what we do. The goal of non-proliferation was doomed the day Hiroshima burned. We uncorked the bottle, the djinni is not going back in. Of course being honest about this is politically suicidal. I’m afraid that unfortunately the best answer for this is duplicity. We have to publicly demand that Iran give up the bomb. (What’s amazing is that the voting public will not only not realize how grossly hypocritical this request is but that they will not even recognize that it is hypocritical at all). So while we are admonishing Iran publicly we need to be approaching a rapprochement in actuality. One thing that is reassuring is that our current president has shown that even totally irresponsible leaders don’t actually use the bomb. The best way to make sure that Iran doesn’t provide a bomb to a terrorist or strike Israel with it is to normalize relations with them. Another thing we should be trying to do to diffuse Middle East tensions and reduce the likelihood of a nuclear demonstration is to give up on any two-state solution in Israel and start pressuring Israel to allow the return of the refugees and to instill Israeli citizenship on all Palestinians equal to that of current Israeli Jews with all rights inherent.

This sounds like we’re not pushing for democracy in Iran, but the reality is that Iran will never be democratic as long as it has good reason to hate us and despise everything we stand for. And as for invading Iran, Give it up. We probably couldn’t take Iran if it was our only conflict.

Lebanon? …will never be stable so long as its “democracy” is weighted in the favor of one religious group, doubly so when other religious groups are particularly under-represented. What to say? “Hey, if you don’t want to see Hezbollah rise again then help me strengthen the Lebanese army and social safety net so Hezbollah isn’t so vital for southern services and securities.”

No country is going to adopt democracy if it is constantly angry at the United States. And no one is going to attempt to go toe-to-toe with us weapon for weapon like the Soviet Union did. China, Iran, Russia, Cuba, are not going to bankrupt themselves trying to provide our counterbalance. Democratic futures in these countries and other relatively stable non-democratic societies depend on their ability to be comfortable enough with us to allow their people to interact with ours and to not be constantly rallying their citizens against us. If we lead by example then others will want to be like us.

Also, democracy should be promoted where democracy can survive and where democracy is genuinely in the best interest of the people. This is not a suggestion that some types of people are incapable of handling a democracy but a recognition that democracy is an advanced form of politics where the key ingredient, frequent participation of all interested citizens in the effective selection of makers and enforcers of law, is very high on the ladder of societal needs and must first be supported by other, more basic pillars of community well-being in order to exist over a prolonged period of time.

A democracy in which the majority of the population are poor is likely to suffer from both ineffectual policy and limited duration of existence. My logic is such:

Truly democratic regimes in poverty-stricken countries are inclined to direct state revenues towards income redistribution from the wealthy to the poor. In some circumstances it may go further toward other things like land reallocation and other property seizure. This, of course is done at the behest of the majority. It also comes at the expense of the dwindling middle and upper classes, which are usually the source classes for military officers. Poor democracies are particularly vulnerable to military coups. Preparing a country for stable democracy means trying to grow the middle class into the majority. This won’t happen in any country where the economy is resource driven because of the great need of cheap labor and the absence of a need of well paid workers in such countries. A successful democracy is an industrial democracy. Going from the third world to the first requires either total isolation or an ability to funnel revenues into industrial projects which in the short term do not benefit low-income citizens. It’s rare for a corporate industrialist to weather the attacks of populists in genuine third world democracies.

One thing that should be realized is that “The Masses” have nothing in common with expatriots. If these guys had anything in common with the common people they wouldn’t be in exile. The vast majority of “Common Men” just want a forty to fifty hour work week, a roof, a pair of shoes for the kids, a little news, a little intimacy with the wife and maybe a small vegetable garden in the courtyard. They want to believe that odds are they won’t die tomorrow or loose any of their loved ones. Despite what we’ve been led to believe all our lives, every one of these desires is greater than the desire to be free for the “Common Man”.

Of course admitting that democracy is not the best cure for everything bad in the world at this very moment is a good way to loose elections so it is important that office seekers maintain a bit of that Pollyanna-ish image and consistently chide anyone who deviates from our image of western democratic perfection. And because of the inherent hypocrisy this leads to, it is vital that the rest of us do our part to gracefully educate our peers.