The Dems on War: Looking back on Iraq, looking forward to Sudan?
Last night, Jonathan Edwards gave the most complete elaboration of the Dems platform so far. For this item, I’ll just talk about the plank on war. Despite the decision to avoid explicit Bush bashing, there was substantial criticism of the prosecution of the ‘war on terror’ so far and a promise to do things differently. The current Bush position does not - on the face of it - sound that different. I don’t remember whether it was during the speach or elsewhere* that one of the J’s said that Bush had adopted their position. The real difference, of course, is that it’s hard to believe that the Bush administration has a genuine desire or the ability to carry out this position. WMD’s? Flowers and sweets? Reconstruction will pay for itself? [Where is the $20 Billion of Iraqi oil money anyway? ] Iraqi sovereignty? Well the several flavors of insurgents aren’t buying it.
Edwards talked about a build up of the military. Clearly this is largely in response to Rumsfeld’s insistence on his ‘invasion lite’ scheme despite a lot of contrary advice from the professional military. ‘Invasion lite’ has suffered substantial ‘blowback,’ the brunt of which has fallen on the people wearing the ‘boots on the ground.’ Certainly they deserve to come home. The Dems hope to come up with new young people to replace them. [Elsewhere, I will argue that all possible Iraqi futures involve tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths above and beyond the 16,000 already dead. Let's choose a future that doesn't involve our young people.]
There is also a clear concern about electability in this plank. Party strategists don’t want to risk being too antiwar. If the polls are right and the electorate is split, a balancing act is called for. But if a man straddles a fence, it’s best he have long legs or he might get his nuts crushed. [Maybe this is an argument for a woman president.] Dems may be willing to go a little to the left with Edwards’ “Two Americas”, but on war they are going to continue to cling to the center. [But is there a there there?]
Meanwhile, looming on the horizon is also the spectre of an armed UN intervention in Sudan. How will the American left respond to US participation? Could the US conceivably say no and still hope for UN support to ‘Internationalize’ the war in Iraq. I suspect that the Kerry people started to think about this a while ago. “Preemptive war is sometimes necessary, but Iraq was not.” Is part of the proposed military build up in anticipation of a “police action” in Sudan? Will it turn out better than Somalia or will it be “Battleship Down?”
*Watching TV, while streaming Air America Radio and reading blogs on the Internet, may not be the best way to get a coherent view of what’s going on 
