I've taken a look at the Democratic Platform and, in particular, its stances on two of the most pressing foreign policy challenges of the day: Afghanistan and Iraq. My conclusion: the Democrats offer nothing that Bush hasn't already. Put simply, they've basically cribbed this Administration's Afghanistan and Iraq policies.
Don't believe me? Well, let's take a closer look. ( Here's a link to the platform-warning, PDF).
On Afghanistan, the Democratic Platform states that "nowhere is the need for collective endeavor greater than in Afghanistan." (By the by, I'm not sure that's right, an implosion in Iraq would likely have even more disastrous effects than one in Afghanistan, at least in the immediate term, but let's put that aside for the moment).
So anyway, what is offered up by way of a new and improved Afghanistan policy?
Here's the key text from the Platform:
We must expand NATO forces outside Kabul. We must accelerate training for the Afghan army and police. The program to disarm and reintegrate warlord militias into society must be expedited and expanded into a mainstream strategy. We will attack the exploding opium trade ignored by the Bush Administration by doubling our counter-narcotics assistance to the Karzai government and reinvigorating the regional drug control program.
Sounds great, huh?
Except we're doing all of the above already.
We're expanding NATO forces outside Kabul (more here on so-called PRTs being beefed up). We are already accelerating training for Afghan army and police. The so-called DDR program has already gone "mainstream" (whatever that means) with the U.S. as largest donor. And yeah, opium trade is on the rise--but the Bush administration is also invigorating its counter-narcotics efforts and "reinvigorating" the regional drug program. Read this testimony by the Assistant Secretary of State for Counter-Narcotics Robert Charles about our efforts alongside the Brits--who are leading the effort in this area.
So nothing new to see here folks, move along.
Now, how about Iraq? It merits a full two pages in the platform. The first page (at p. 8) rehashes a lot of the mantras of the past year: the case for WMD was "badly exaggerated" (true, but why then was Dick Gephardt standing side by side with Dubya, spearheading Congressional authorization of the war and ostensibly also thinking the WMD intel was a 'slam dunk') no true "international coalition" (except for the U.K., Australia, Italy, Spain (dare I mention them?), Netherlands, Poland, Japan, S. Korea--and, more quietly, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait among many others); and Graydon Carter talking points about a shortage of bulletproof vests on the ground (go to West Point, where I visited four years back, and take a little unofficial poll of the cadets to see which party they think takes better care of the military).
Now there are some fair points too: we didn't go in with "sufficient forces" and our plan to "win the peace" could have been much better--our assumptions were way over-optimistic and the transformationalists at the Pentagon didn't understand peacemaking requires lots of grunts on the ground (it's interesting to note, isn't it, that the platform speaks of winning the "peace"--conceding, to a fashion, that the fabled "major combat operations" are actually really over....).
But let's look at the all-important specific policy prescriptions the Democrats plan to bring to the table in Iraq. As you'll see, with one unimportant exception (a High Commissioner), it's like my analysis of Afghanistan above--ain't nothing new!
To win over allies, we must share responsibility with those nations that answer our call, and treat them with respect. We must lead, but we must listen. The rewards of respect are enormous. We must convince NATO to take on a more significant role and contribute additional military forces. As other countries, including Muslim majority countries, contribute troops, the United States will be able to reduce its military presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when approrpriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence.
All well and good--but we're already striving to do so. Question: How will Kerry be better at it? Because Jacques will play warm cuddle and work the phone lines to Algiers with more alacrity? Whatever, let's be serious.
Second, we need to create an international High Commissioner to serve as the senior international representative working with the Iraqi government.
Ah yes, the Yasushi Akashi approach to solving tough geopolitical problems. Look, we've already bent over backwards vis-a-vis giving Lakhdar Brahimi mega-leeway on smoothing out electoral modalities with the likes of Ayatollah Sistani. What will appointment of a High Commissioner accomplish, precisely?
I mean, don't get me wrong, it sounds great guys--and the Davos wing of the Forbes party will doubtless be cheered by all the high falutin' contact diplomacy ring of it all. But what difference will it really make on the ground or for Iraq? Pretty much zilch--as the UN Special Envoy is already doing this same job.
At the same time, U.S. and international policies must take into consideration the best interests of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction: jobs, infrastructure, and services. They should also receive the full benefits of their own oil production as quickly as possible, so as to rebuild their country and help themselves as individuals, while also reducing the costs of security and reconstruction on the American taxpayer and the costs of gasoline to American consumers. And they need to be able to communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being disrespected in their own country.
Call this the Halliburton clause of the Iraq platform plank. "No-bid contracts" bad; "grassroots oganizations; good (snag a Nader voter!). Oil to the people, man! (that's, of course, already stated U.S. government policy on Iraq) Oh, and get those prices down at the pump over here too, while you at it...
No folks, this isn't a serious attempt to think about how to better deliver services and the benefits of reconstruction to the Iraqi people. It's simply a recitation about how those balding white guys at Halliburton are enriching themselves on the backs of the Iraqi people for the benefit of Dick Cheney and assorted oil multinationals. And I'm just not buying this tired and lame Democratic talking point.
Finally, the last Iraq related item from the Dems:
America also needs a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. It must be done in the field and on the job as well as in the classroom. Units cannot be put on the street without backup from international security forces. This is a task we must do in partnership with other nations, not just on our own.
Folks, the whole point of the recent NATO Istanbul summit was to 'train and equip' Iraqi forces "with other nations." Now, some Iraqi cadets might have to trek all the way to the Paris suburbs to be trained in crack gendarmarie tactiques--but other NATO countries will be likely providing on the ground training.
Again, nothing new here. It's being done already. And, you know, the Democrats must realize that. After all, why else would they feel compelled, in the platform itself, to write: "They [Bush Administration] are now taking up the suggestions that many Democrats have been making for over a year."
But, er, that's not quite right.
It's the Democrats who are taking up the Iraq policies the Republicans adopted about half a year back during the strategic re-think post the bloody travails of last April in Iraq.
Or am I missing something?
Posted by Gregory Djerejian at July 29, 2004 12:32 PM