« The CIA Game | Main | The Tyranny of the Majority »

December 07, 2004

A Few Questions

Kevin Drum has a few questions he'd like answered in response to perceived conservative glee over the discussions over the direction of the Democratic party in the wake of Peter Beinart's provocative article. Speaking strictly for myself, I don't see why conservatives would feel smug over these discussions, but perhaps I'm just not in the proper mindset. In any case, while I suspect that the questions Kevin is asking aren't necessarily aimed in my direction, I'll answer them anyhow.

1. Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?

I don't know that I've ever believed that American military power was a good way to promote democracy in the Middle East, only that it was the best available tool for the job. In retrospect, however, I do now wonder if we would not have been wiser staying out of Iraq. I don't think this question is the no-brainer the doves claim, but I think that what I've seen over the past two years suggests that America wasn't prepared to do the job in Iraq. Given that failure may leave us with a worse situation than the status quo, it therefore follows that we might have been wiser to stay out entirely. I'm not sure about this, but I have been trending that way over the past six months or so.

2. Shortly after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said publicly that they thought the attacks were well-deserved retribution from God in response to moral decay — as personified by gays, feminists, the ACLU, and NOW. Do you worry that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party? Do you think President Bush has sufficiently distanced himself from them and their followers?

This may be my blue state background coming to the fore, but it's difficult for me to worry about Falwell and Robertson because I don't know anyone who takes them seriously. It is my opinion that the liberal dominance of entertainment helps Republicans here, because extremists on the right tend to be marginalized in the discussion in the popular press to a much greater degree than extremists on the left (see Michael Moore for the prime example of this phenomon). Having said that, I would probably feel more comfortable with President Bush steering as clear of those two as possible; on the other hand, I'm not aware of him being close to them now.

3. Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush's policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.

Democracy (or self-government, more precisely) is the core concern for me. I believed that we needed an Arab state where the people ruled since day one, and I stand by that. How far am I willing to go to demonstrate my credibility? That strikes me as a great question, since it now gives Kevin the opportunity to set the parameters and declare that, no matter how far you go, it's not far enough to be 'credible.' In my case, however, I have volunteered to go to Iraq or Afghanistan with any of the units that are slated to go, although I haven't been selected for any of those missions as yet. I would not endorse military action in either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to press for democratic change, but I would certainly support attempts to open up both societies (though we would need some safeguards in Pakistan; I can live with an Islamic Pakistan as long as their nukes are under control).

4. On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region? Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.

I don't know, and I'll concede that this is a concern. As I noted above, I am concerned about spreading self-rule in the Arab world, and I think that the Bush administration represents the only game in town on this point. The Democrats are already on the record as saying they don't see any reason to push for democracy in the Arab world. The Republicans claim to be for it, and are doing some things in that area. It's a lousy choice, quite frankly, but politics rarely involves good choices. As for the 2001 energy task force, I couldn't care less. I think that the argument that such task forces need to be free to discuss options without having to fear political repercussions is valid, whether they're discussing energy policy or health care.

5. A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?

It's a reasonable belief as long as you accept the premise that the Bible is accurate. I don't subscribe to it myself, but I'm not ready to declare people who do believe that to be 'loons,' and I don't advocate purging people from either party (of course, I'm not a Republican, either, so my recommendation wouldn't carry much weight in any case). I do not think we should base our policy on such a belief.

6. Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?

I think we would be unwise to invade Iran. Given our current commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't see an Iran occupation as feasible. Ultimately, I suspect we may have to accept a nuclear Iran, although Israel may have something to say about that. Kevin's second question is a false choice, but I am on record as opposing a draft an reiterate that opposition here.

7. If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.

Almost certainly not. Unless there is substantial evidence to suggest that the Iraqis can take care of themselves, withdrawal would be disastrous. Unless the new government asked us to leave, in which case I don't think we would have any choice but to leave.

8. Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie's crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?

I think they're jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence, but I'm curious what Kevin means by what should be done with them.

I don't think Kevin actually cares about these questions or the answers to them, because he thinks the answers are self-evident. That's his business, of course. Which is a shame, since I'm a lot less interested in following interparty squabbles than I am in hearing how we address the very real problems we face, because those questions are just begging for discussion from both sides untainted by partisan sniping.