National Insecurity

Confronting hundreds of delegates at the California State Democratic Convention this March, presidential hopeful Howard Dean proved he had more backbone than most mainstream Democrats. “What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq,” he belted. And ever since, the weak-kneed centrists in the Democratic Leadership Council have tried to shut him up. After all, say Al Frum, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, taking a stance against the President’s foreign policy demonstrates weakness abroad, and weakness doesn’t sit well with post-9/11 swing voters. It’s really too bad that the sellout wing of the Democratic Party has bought into the Right’s reckless and misguided rhetoric on what it means to be strong on defense.

Since opposition to Bush’s irresponsible incursions abroad is characterized as weakness, the hawks, apparently, measure defense strength not by one’s ability to discern what is in America’s security interest, but by one’s willingness to send American men and women into combat with little regard to the likely consequences of doing so. And instead of exposing this farce, much of the Democratic Party has chosen to whore itself out to the angry white male contingent in the United States and imperil our national security in a wasteful war in Iraq.

Just look at what happened. Our troops have been spread dangerously thin, American allies everywhere have been alienated. And real threats, such as al Qaeda, North Korea and the Taliban have been ignored. And perhaps most recklessly of all, Bush has blunted America’s ability to utilize the threat of force by rendering it meaningless. Like a prosecutor trying a murder suspect, Bush asked Saddam for a plea bargain—cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and we might not invade. But even after Saddam admitted the inspectors and Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix begged for more time, Bush still went for the death penalty, and our international credibility was trashed. The President proved his most ardent critics right—his stated goal of regime change and his half-hearted pursuit of a diplomatic solution were mutually exclusive.

The threat of force can only be effective when it is clearly contingent on the behavior of our enemies. But the way we ended up attacking Iraq sent the signal to other rogue nations that they have nothing to lose from adopting a more hostile position. When America wants to invade, there’s no changing its mind. At least that seems to be the message two other “axis of evil” regimes are getting. In August, the International Atomic Energy Agency found traces of enriched uranium at a centrifuge facility in Iran, and North Korea has openly announced itself to be a nuclear power.

The Democratic Party has a strong record on national security: in the twentieth century, America successfully defended its allies in two world wars under the leadership of two Democratic presidents. But the cowardly faction of the Democratic Party seems to have forgotten the example of another Democrat: President John F. Kennedy ’40, who averted nuclear war by exercising restraint during the Cuban Missile Crisis when the hawks in his administration wanted a preemptive strike. A leader who is strong on national security does not recklessly throw troops into conflict at any and every opportunity, but exercises sound judgment. Democratic politicians who abetted the President have failed that test.

—Eoghan W. Stafford is an editorial editor.