In response to my response to the TNR Primary, Gail wrote to ask the following hard questions:
"[I]n recent weeks I''ve been very concerned about [Howard Dean's] foreign policy positions, particularly on American policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how to handle the Iraq mess that President Bush and his cronies have gotten us into. Reading these pieces, and following the links to/on Dean''s web-site has been somewhat reassuring, though some questions remain, and here''s where I''d like to hear your thoughts as an unabashed Dean supporter. A) Given that Dean''s official statements and apparent position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are pretty nuanced and in accordance with at least stated, if not actual, current US policy, what''s with the rather flat-footed comment (and let''s be honest, even if his fornal position is nuanced, his off-the-cuff statement was flat-footed) Dean made in New Mexico? Which Dean should I be listening to? B) I think Dean was absolutely correct in his opposition to the Iraq war. I think he''s further correct that those candidates who voted for the war resolution and who are now expressing suprise and/or concern regarding Administration policy and how the war actually turned out (lack of international support, insufficient planning for the aftermath, etc.) are either disengenuous, or weren''t paying sufficient attention last fall, or both. But...we''re there now, and to leave things as they are would disastrous. I need to hear more about what Dean proposes to do now. He said to the Counsel on Foreign Relations in June that he''d put in more troops - where will he take them from? Will he bring home the reservists? How will he pay for those troops? He wants to bring in other countries - good idea, but what will it take to get them on board? I''d like to think that being asked by someone who isn''t George Bush (or working on behalf of same) will go a long way, but will it go far enough?
Okay, let's set some parameters here. First of all, I don't think of myself as an "unabashed" Dean supporter. Thus far, Dean has been the candidate with whom I have most identified, in part because he is not from the part of the Democratic party that was afraid to voice any kind of loyal opposition after 2000, and that refused to stand for anything in the 2002 elections. To me, a vote for Dean is as much a vote against the Democratic status quo as a vote for Dean.
[This is not to say that I am an "angry" Democrat. Rather, I feel betrayed by the likes of Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, and am tired of the right wing onslaught against the Constitution. For me, it's not so much about the economy as it is about wiping the smug smiles off the faces of priggish conservatives who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and people who look and talk like them. Okay, maybe I'm a little angry, but I like to think it's in a rational and persuasive way.]
Anyway, the other parameter is that I too am somewhat troubled by the amateur mistakes of the Dean campaign. Yes, every campaign goes through this process, but it's painful to watch. I say this because I think it's understandable that Gov. Dean's comments in New Mexico came off as "flat footed". Having said that, I don't think that they were flat footed, but I see where you're coming from. In an ideal world, he would have given the more nuanced answer, but sometimes politics doesn't work that way. Given that fact, I personally don't think we should let the perfect become the enemy of the good. In other words, listen to the nuanced Dean answer, not the soundbite.
As an aside, I am curious why Dean's position isn't too pro Israel to you. One of Dean's lead advisors in this area is the former head of AIPAC, which has taken a pro-Sharon stance. For Dean's own part, when questioned whether his position was closer to Peace Now's or AIPAC's, Dean said AIPAC's. Of course, Dean has moderated the AIPAC position somewhat, but still, that's a fairly hard line to be taking.
As a second aside, since you asked my opinion, let me say that I have half a mind that says Dean's off-the-cuff position may have been the right approach notwithstanding his more nuanced position. The fact is that a two-state solution is probably the only morally defensible and politically feasible solution: it satisfies the Arab and Palestinian need for self-determination; and it gets Israel out of the apartheid business, which, to a Jewish state, is ultimately unsustainable. And to get to the two-state solution, it is true that Israel will have to withdraw protection for some settlements, while the Palestinians have to resolve the terrorism in their midst. None of that will happen on its own, however; somebody has to step up and broker the deal. What's more, it's not going to be the United Nations, which is captive to Arab and pan-Islamic interests, and it won't be Europe, which has historically been more supportive of the surrounding Arab states. That leaves the United States. The fortunate or unfortunate result of that is that we have to be perceived by both sides as being even-handed. For more on this line of reasoning, I refer you to a recent article in The Nation. [link]
But I digress.
The Iraq question, to me, is more difficult. I think that Dean is pandering here, just a bit. You're correct -- we're in this mess, and regardless of how we got here, we can't just declare victory and go home. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. It seemed to me that in the second debate, when Dean said he would advocate bringing our troops home, he must have been reading from Dennis Kucinich's cue cards. But whatever. He said it, and I think he was wrong. For the moment, I can live with that cognitive dissonance, however, because I think, again, the more nuanced answers are right -- we need to internationalize our presence in Iraq, particularly with Arab troops, and we need to significantly broaden the base of support. Probably, that means significantly increasing our presence in Iraq in the short term. To answer your direct question, no, I don't know where Dean proposes to find those extra troops, or what he plans to do about reservists, but I assume we'll hear more about that as the campaign progresses.
Unsatisfying answers, probably, but hey, it's fourteen months before the general election and six months before the California primary. There's still time for him to clarify his positions.
"[I]n recent weeks I''ve been very concerned about [Howard Dean's] foreign policy positions, particularly on American policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how to handle the Iraq mess that President Bush and his cronies have gotten us into. Reading these pieces, and following the links to/on Dean''s web-site has been somewhat reassuring, though some questions remain, and here''s where I''d like to hear your thoughts as an unabashed Dean supporter. A) Given that Dean''s official statements and apparent position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are pretty nuanced and in accordance with at least stated, if not actual, current US policy, what''s with the rather flat-footed comment (and let''s be honest, even if his fornal position is nuanced, his off-the-cuff statement was flat-footed) Dean made in New Mexico? Which Dean should I be listening to? B) I think Dean was absolutely correct in his opposition to the Iraq war. I think he''s further correct that those candidates who voted for the war resolution and who are now expressing suprise and/or concern regarding Administration policy and how the war actually turned out (lack of international support, insufficient planning for the aftermath, etc.) are either disengenuous, or weren''t paying sufficient attention last fall, or both. But...we''re there now, and to leave things as they are would disastrous. I need to hear more about what Dean proposes to do now. He said to the Counsel on Foreign Relations in June that he''d put in more troops - where will he take them from? Will he bring home the reservists? How will he pay for those troops? He wants to bring in other countries - good idea, but what will it take to get them on board? I''d like to think that being asked by someone who isn''t George Bush (or working on behalf of same) will go a long way, but will it go far enough?
Okay, let's set some parameters here. First of all, I don't think of myself as an "unabashed" Dean supporter. Thus far, Dean has been the candidate with whom I have most identified, in part because he is not from the part of the Democratic party that was afraid to voice any kind of loyal opposition after 2000, and that refused to stand for anything in the 2002 elections. To me, a vote for Dean is as much a vote against the Democratic status quo as a vote for Dean.
[This is not to say that I am an "angry" Democrat. Rather, I feel betrayed by the likes of Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, and am tired of the right wing onslaught against the Constitution. For me, it's not so much about the economy as it is about wiping the smug smiles off the faces of priggish conservatives who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and people who look and talk like them. Okay, maybe I'm a little angry, but I like to think it's in a rational and persuasive way.]
Anyway, the other parameter is that I too am somewhat troubled by the amateur mistakes of the Dean campaign. Yes, every campaign goes through this process, but it's painful to watch. I say this because I think it's understandable that Gov. Dean's comments in New Mexico came off as "flat footed". Having said that, I don't think that they were flat footed, but I see where you're coming from. In an ideal world, he would have given the more nuanced answer, but sometimes politics doesn't work that way. Given that fact, I personally don't think we should let the perfect become the enemy of the good. In other words, listen to the nuanced Dean answer, not the soundbite.
As an aside, I am curious why Dean's position isn't too pro Israel to you. One of Dean's lead advisors in this area is the former head of AIPAC, which has taken a pro-Sharon stance. For Dean's own part, when questioned whether his position was closer to Peace Now's or AIPAC's, Dean said AIPAC's. Of course, Dean has moderated the AIPAC position somewhat, but still, that's a fairly hard line to be taking.
As a second aside, since you asked my opinion, let me say that I have half a mind that says Dean's off-the-cuff position may have been the right approach notwithstanding his more nuanced position. The fact is that a two-state solution is probably the only morally defensible and politically feasible solution: it satisfies the Arab and Palestinian need for self-determination; and it gets Israel out of the apartheid business, which, to a Jewish state, is ultimately unsustainable. And to get to the two-state solution, it is true that Israel will have to withdraw protection for some settlements, while the Palestinians have to resolve the terrorism in their midst. None of that will happen on its own, however; somebody has to step up and broker the deal. What's more, it's not going to be the United Nations, which is captive to Arab and pan-Islamic interests, and it won't be Europe, which has historically been more supportive of the surrounding Arab states. That leaves the United States. The fortunate or unfortunate result of that is that we have to be perceived by both sides as being even-handed. For more on this line of reasoning, I refer you to a recent article in The Nation. [link]
But I digress.
The Iraq question, to me, is more difficult. I think that Dean is pandering here, just a bit. You're correct -- we're in this mess, and regardless of how we got here, we can't just declare victory and go home. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. It seemed to me that in the second debate, when Dean said he would advocate bringing our troops home, he must have been reading from Dennis Kucinich's cue cards. But whatever. He said it, and I think he was wrong. For the moment, I can live with that cognitive dissonance, however, because I think, again, the more nuanced answers are right -- we need to internationalize our presence in Iraq, particularly with Arab troops, and we need to significantly broaden the base of support. Probably, that means significantly increasing our presence in Iraq in the short term. To answer your direct question, no, I don't know where Dean proposes to find those extra troops, or what he plans to do about reservists, but I assume we'll hear more about that as the campaign progresses.
Unsatisfying answers, probably, but hey, it's fourteen months before the general election and six months before the California primary. There's still time for him to clarify his positions.
posted by Daniel at 10:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home