Can "We" Be A Movement? Posted by Ali Eteraz

I apologize for the inordinately long delay between postings. I was busy getting Eteraz.Org: States of Islam up and running. It is an interactive blog community related to the religion and politics of Islam, as well as general political discussion, and is open to all. It's existence ties in with what I'm going to talk about here.

I have been pretty actively reading the debates at various smaller progressive blogs, as well as a lot of the foreign policy discussions taking place at DailyKos. In the post-victory atmosphere, I'm not exactly seeing very much that makes me hopeful. It is my contention that the "left" is now firmly split between the Truman Democrat and the Isolationist position, and the former is in danger of being overrun because it does not exist as a cohesive movement, but only as something that "DC insiders" know about.

Today's Isolationist Leftist shares almost nothing with a Truman Democrat in terms of foreign policy. Here are the six foreign policy "principles" that define a Truman Democrat: American exceptionalism, the use of force, American hegemony, the world community, liberal-mindedness, and helping the least well off. Today's Isolationist Left rejects the first three of those without a thought (because they are presumed to be solely belonging to the Neo-Cons). The other three are accepted as long as they do not require having to affirm any of the first three principles.

Perhaps nowhere is this split better reflected than in the issue of Iraq. The Isolationist Left wants an immediate withdrawal. Let the chips fall where they may afterward. A Truman Democrat wants to use diplomacy to engage the regional powers, wants to engage the Iraqi police so the country does not descend into nefarious sectarianism (and to prevent a potential human catastrophe), and would, in the future, provide for financial support of all democratic elements in Iraq. In the event that Iran make a military move over Iraq, the Isolationist Left would conclude that such assertiveness by Iran was an unavoidable consequence of us having entered the war. A Truman Democrat would, on the other hand, agitate for immediate quasi-military action to push Iran back (though likely to withhold from all out war).

In other words, it is time we accepted that vast gulf between a Truman Democrat and an Isolationist Leftist. This is hard to swallow, I know, because a Truman Democrat shares many many many principles of importance with the Isolationist Left within the domestic sphere -- shares views on immigration, civil liberties, women's rights, minority rights, labor, regulation, and so on. So the question becomes, if the gulf on the foreign policy issue is really insurmountable, but unity on the domestic front almost necessary (in order to keep the conservatives at bay), how can Truman Democrats ever do the kind of foreign policy they want to engage in?

It's pretty simple: Truman Democrats need to become a "movement" that covers not merely foreign policy, but extends itself to all elements of the domestic sphere. Right now, I am labeling this post "progressive strategy." Yet, I have to be honest. When I think of "progressives" I don't think of a Truman Democrat. No, I think of the Isolationist Leftists (with whom I share a domestic agenda), whose biggest foreign policy issue right now is whether to impeach Bush or not and who have virtually no qualms in leaving the Iraqi and Afghani populace in the midst of massive civil wars (that our country begat). As I see it (from the rank and file position as I am no wonk), Truman Democrats need a movement.

Are they to choose Centrism? Center-Leftism? "Liberalism?" (careful there, the center-right hawks already took that one over). My very simple fear is that we -- all of us on the Left -- are and have already, by virtue of having declared ourselves "progressives" bought into supporting the Isolationist Leftist big-whigs. I am looking at the Democracy Arsenal blogroll right now (and admittedly it doesn't reflect an ideological affiliation), but I am seeing the names of a bunch of progressives whose views on foreign policy are largely driven by negation: we will do the opposite of what those cursed conservatives do.

I'm afraid to say, but I think the Truman-Democrats need to start to diversify. They need to make mini celebrities out of themselves. They need to start to touch the rank and file. Thing is, they know full well that they are lacking in this department and do make occassional efforts to take their position populist. But they need to do more. They need to create a viable netroots. They need to start showing up in progressive webzines (like Counterpunch and Cursor) and try and create a dialogue on the issue of foreign policy with their Isolationist Leftist brethren (with whom they have a shared domestic agenda, I reiterate).

It is not too late to do this. But it can get out of hand. In UK, the split between the Isolationists and their equivalent of the Truman Democrats is complete. If anyone even so much as suggests that he/she would like to remain in Iraq to prevent a catastrophe that would be caused by our presence there, they are immediately labeled fascist and Nazi. I know this because while I am not British I followed the Euston Manifesto very closely. You'd think that the Eustonites -- if you listened only to the British Isolationist Progressive -- were a bunch of neo-imperialistic colonizers.

This is what the Truman Democrats are going to be called by their Isolationist Leftist brethren. Unless they do something. Unless they create a broad and wide-ranging social movement (which means it has to be more than just a foreign policy movement).

I have some idea on how this can be accomplished. I'll lay out some pointers right now:

1. Destroy the illusion (and that is all it really is), that you guys (wonks) are merely elitist wonks. There is only one way to do this. You have to get your message out to as many people as possible (I'm talking about sheer number). You do this by relaying on what I am going to term "intermediate authorities." (People who are not wonks but do tend to think that the wonks have something meanginful to impart).
2. Write in those publications which are currently dominated by Isolationist Leftists -- where the only view on foreign policy is the one where the Left does what the Right is not doing.
3. Try to reach out to those people in the Center-Right who are turned off by the Right at the moment. This is a brief moment but the opportunity is out there right now. A Truman Democrat does this by peddling not the first three of the six principles listed above (they already agree with you on this and will tell you that you are nothing more than a Neo-con), but by peddling the last three. A large part of the Center-Right is very concerned about the fact that our heavy handed policies are turning an entire religion against us. We can go in and say (and prove) that we are willing to work with forces in that religion which support us. This will warm many hearts on the Center-Right.
4. Reach out to the large Muslim bloc in Western English speaking nations. This is almost common sense. Muslim communities in England, Canada, UK, are almost dogmatically anti-Bush. But they are not Isolationist because they don't really like to see their co-religionists kill each other. One place to start this project is at Eteraz.Org.
5. Reach out to the reeeeeally well established netroots of self-proclaimed "Centrists." They are dying to hear the Truman Democrat message on foreign policy. This is the ideal place for a "movement" to begin. Right now, the only foreign policy view that these "Centrists" have available to them is a Neo-Con tinged one.

Me and fellow activists are more than willing to offer our rank and file services in the pursuit of these endeavors. However, it means that more active engagement will be required from the experts (you guys). Democracy Arsenal has been self-enclosed long enough. So has Qahwa Sada. So has the Truman Project. I really have no doubt that you guys have got all the theoretical problems ironed out (and those that you don't, you can figure them out later).

I can do my part. I can offer to make Eteraz.Org a launching pad for the dispersion that is necessary. I think of you as elites. I want to have you come over and talk to the housewives, defense contractors, students, and librarians that hang out (in great numbers) within our community. The site has demonstrated success in touching Centrists and Center-Rightists as well as vast numbers of English speaking Muslims. 100,000 page views in three weeks. As great as Democracy Arsenal and the Truman Project are, they are not places where people like me do too well. We prefer plain-speak and really have very few facts to back up what we think is the "right" thing to do. When we come to places like this we become stiff.

At some point the Truman Democrats have to become a movement. At the expense of sounding like a pompous revolutionary I have to say that the movement is now.

Please share your thoughts in the comments, via email, or telepathically.

Comments

[Greg Sanders]

I consider myself part of the Truman Democrats and have a few more in depth comments I hope to make later. But for a quick starter, I think it would be more fair to call the progressive movement "anti-Interventionist" rather than "isolationist."

There are certianly isolationist elements on the left. However, the wider anti-interventionist movements do not have unified stands on trade, aid, support for allies that aren't dictatorships, etc.

Particularly since we're still allies on most issues, I think we should try to refer to them by a name they'd answer to. Those of you in what I'm calling the anti-interventionist left, feel free to tell me if I'm wrong. (For an example of a fairly mainstream anti-interventionist, I think of Matt Yglesias.)

[J Thomas]

... how can Truman Democrats ever do the kind of foreign policy they want to engage in?

They are a minority. They share domestic policy with one group and they share foreign policy with another.

So obviously, they must form an alliance with the isolationists on domestic policy, and form an alliance with center-right hawks and neocons and whoever they are most aligned with on foreign policy.

Also, you might see about getting funding from defense contractors and rich right-wing nutjobs and whoever. With a lot of money you could swamp the media with your views. And with the neocons so badly discredited, Truman Democrats might take their place as a cover story for US military intevention that benefits defense contractors and particular US international businesses. And rich right-wing nutjobs might gladly fund you as a cover story for what they really want to get done.

[J.S.]

A pet peeve- do we really need movements named after long-dead presidents? Can't we base movements on ideas and not people? I always get suspicious when individuals are elevated and not simply the principles.

J.S.

[Rob W]

The basis for this post is: The Fallacy of the Missing Middle.

[Rheinhard]

In the event that Iran make a military move over Iraq, the Isolationist Left would conclude that such assertiveness by Iran was an unavoidable consequence of us having entered the war. A Truman Democrat would, on the other hand, agitate for immediate quasi-military action to push Iran back (though likely to withhold from all out war).

Being a dumb member of the "isolationist Left" (though I quite agree with the apellation "anti-interventionist" as being much more descriptive of my views than "isolationist"), could you serious policy geniuses please explain to me the difference between a "quasi-military action" and "all out war"? And if there is a discernible difference, how you prevent one from escalating into the other?

And moreover, considering you assiduously fail to deal with the scenario most likely to provoke the aforementioned Iranian incursion, namely a pre-emptive strike on Iranian facilities by us, could you explain what the "legitimate" Iranian responses to such an attack would be and whether they would constitute a "quasi-military action" or "all out war"?

[James, Los Angeles]

One thing about the "Truman Democrats" of yore is that they were willing to put their ass on the line with military service. Let's see if you geniuses follow suit.

[calling all toasters]

Mr. Eteraz--

I'm sorry your insane war in Iraq is going so poorly. Since those you deride as "isolationist" overwhelmingly supported interventions in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia (each of which was far less of a disaster, both geopolitically and morally), perhaps you could change your terminology. "Not insane" seems suitable. I think you can put us all down for opposing invasions of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Myanmar, France, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, and whatever other countries occur to Michael Ledeen's pretty little head. See? NOT insane.

Also, you may wish to drop the "Truman" from your "Truman Democrats"--it will make people think you are referring to President Harry Truman. Truman, you may recall, failed to invade or nuke mainland China when presented the opportunity. A move striking in its lack of insanity. Perhaps you could call those you admire "MacArthur Democrats" (for Douglas MacArthur, since none of them is exactly in line to get a "genius grant").
Not that MacArthur was a Democrat, but he was clearly not "not insane" at that point.

[A Truman Dem]

This post is so obscenely moronic that it's hard to know where to start. A few main points:
- It's poor form to blogwhore yourself so shamelessly.
- "Here are the six foreign policy "principles" that define a Truman Democrat: American exceptionalism, the use of force, American hegemony, the world community, liberal-mindedness, and helping the least well off." Um, the vast majority of Dems have no problem with any of these, and certainly doesn't "reject [them] without a thought" -- depending on HOW they're applied. Exceptionalism is as exceptionalism does: if you use your power for good, that's exceptionalism. If for evil, that's decidedly not exceptional. The use of force is fine depending on HOW it's applied -- you saw the vast majority of Dems, including your so-called "isolationists", support use of force in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, among other places. Hegemony, again: whether that's good or not depends on circumstances! These aren't principles to take or leave at all times. And the rest of the six are embraced by virtually all Dems.
- It's a ridiculous lie to say any significant number of Dems oppose diplomacy, negotiations, regional coordination, and financial support for Iraq. It's not a choice between withdrawal and those options -- those elements could all occur ALONG with redeployment.
- It's intellectually dishonest to slam one group for advocating withdrawal and praise Truman Dems for advocating a host of options . . . but not state the Truman position on withdrawal. I suspect you left out that detail because Truman Dems largely support withdrawal, and would simply quibble over the timeline.
- You show a serious lack of understanding of Iraq and Iran relations when you speculate that Iran might invade. Due to it's relationship with Iraq's government's leaders, it doesn't have to invade to have its influence felt.
- The easiest way to get followers is to avoid being wrong on everything of importance. Many Truman Dems are (rightfully) eating crow over Iraq, and the way to recover from that is not to become "mini celebrities" (?!?!?).

It's frustrating to read one straw man argument after another being built up and then smashed down. I'm generally a fan of interventionist Democratic foreign policy, but you're not doing it any favors.

[Will Fettes]

'I'm sorry your insane war in Iraq is going so poorly. Since those you deride as "isolationist" overwhelmingly supported interventions in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia (each of which was far less of a disaster, both geopolitically and morally), perhaps you could change your terminology. "Not insane" seems suitable.'

Well said. This post is ridiculous, and simply reifies all the phoney false dichotomies used by the right to frame foreign policy issues in convenient terms.

Trying to paint mainline progressives as divided with enlightened exceptionalists, on one hand, and the loony isolationist left, on the other, is completely disingenuous given the substantive support that existed for the war Afghanistan as a legitimate action under the collective security regime, compared to Iraq which was a clear case of a preventative war of choice.

Indeed, I think anyone who is still advocating exceptionalism at this stage outside the De Tocqueville sense is guilty of a sickening abdication of reason. This is an especially puzzling intellectual affront to link to the Truman tradition – who was instrumental in continuing the Atlantic Charter consensus after Roosevelt – an explicitly non-exceptionalist approach.

The whole point about coherent liberal interventionism that distinguishes it from the unthinking neo-conservative variety is that whilst it leaves room for invention it does not do so at the expense of universalisation of norms on the use of force. This is why liberal interventionists want to the develop the idea of ‘erga omnes’ in regard to forceful counter-measures, rather than just sending John Bolton, with middle finger extended, to the UN.

Who needs FNC to misrepresent liberals when people in the movement do such good job hatchet job of mudding the waters, and failing to grasp even the most elementary distinctions which make the liberal tradition superior to the ad hoc nature of neo-conservatism.

[Ben P]

Ali, to answer your question, no. Your view is a minority one in amongs rank and file Democratic voters in this country. You're probably going to have to accept that.

[Ben P]

It is my contention that the "left" is now firmly split between the Truman Democrat and the Isolationist position, and the former is in danger of being overrun because it does not exist as a cohesive movement, but only as something that "DC insiders" know about.

Its worse than you think - its not "in danger". It was already run over, sometime in the last 2 or 3 years.

[eteraz]

ben p,

in your opinion, isn't it the case that the foreign policy view sketched here *is* the fp view of democratic party dc insiders?

[Ben P]

in your opinion, isn't it the case that the foreign policy view sketched here *is* the fp view of democratic party dc insiders?

Yes, I'd agree with that. But I'd also argue that 80 or 90% of Democratic voters (not just Democrats, Democratic voters - a difference) have more dovish views than the beltway/strategic class.

[eteraz]

ben p,

has there ever been a series of events when the 'dovish' views of the rank & file have been promoted by any administration and/or state department?

[Dan Kervick]

It is my contention that the "left" is now firmly split between the Truman Democrat and the Isolationist position, and the former is in danger of being overrun because it does not exist as a cohesive movement, but only as something that "DC insiders" know about.

Well, as the old saying goes, there are only two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are only two kinds of people in the world and those who don't.

My gosh, what a childish rant this is. I originally planned to make some substantive critical comments, but there are few substantive and coherent ideas to latch onto and criticize.

We prefer plain-speak and really have very few facts to back up what we think is the "right" thing to do. When we come to places like this we become stiff.

Perhaps that stiffness ought to be a message to you, no? Over many years of teaching, I generally found that if I stumbled severely in mounting a defense of what I thought I knew to be the right answer to some question, my stumbling was an indication that I really didn't know the right answer after all.

Of course, if you're someone like George Bush, you may find reason and language nothing but noisy obstructions to the oracular deliverances of the "gut".

[Will Fettes]

Whilst there are certainly elements of the left that are anti-war, rather than merely anti-Iraq or against the Bush Administration, Mr Eteraz has done nothing to establish this fact. He seems to take it as self-evident that this is the defining foreign policy division within an otherwise united progressive polity.

Furthermore, it’s not just any kind of critique Mr Eteraz offers. No. Mainline liberal politics in America isn’t just guilty of succumbing to too overzealous an anti-imperial sentiment, a naivety about the utility of the use of force, (in some circumstances at least), or a tendency to normalise any bad reaction because it was predictable response to Bush’s invasion. Oh no, Mr Eteraz is not content with such a nuanced argument, as uncharitable as it is nonetheless, no, he has to resort to a fully blown caricature of peacenik isolationism and blame America first.

He even manages to pull engagement with Iran and Syria out thin air as if it were a paradigmatic, smoking-gun case in point for leftist isolationism, rather than something he just made up on the spot.

I’m sorry, but where is the evidence of any of this? Can Mr Eteraz offer anything in the way of support for his cartoonist views on people who perhaps don’t quite share his degree of hawkishness?

I think if Mr Eteraz wants to win back mainline support, he can start by not ridiculously strawman-ing the views of a huge bunch of people he is supposedly trying to win over. He should also go back to the drawing board on his categories for something that is more plausible and credible.

Even the most hawkish Democrat can take something like the Princeton National Security Project, the way in which humanitarian intervention has advocated within the rubric of the rule under erga omnes, to get a properly defended position on the use of force, or some principle of nascent jus cogens against terrorism – to get an assertive but universalisable foreign policy. Most importantly, such research would inevitably have explanatory power for why the world had little problem with Afghanistan, but found Iraq to be abhorrent. After all, that is the defining difference of our times in foreign policy, and nothing in Mr Eteraz’s piece gives any indications that he understands the distinction.

[Don Bacon]

Any room on the Truman bandwagon for one more?

News report: President George W. Bush launched a conference Friday that included Democrats disgruntled with his Iraq policy by comparing himself to former President Harry Truman, who initiated the Truman Doctrine to fight communism, got bogged down in the Korean War and left office unpopular.

[Ben P]

has there ever been a series of events when the 'dovish' views of the rank & file have been promoted by any administration and/or state department?

Foreign policy making is, in the US, a typically elitist, non-democratic affair. This is OK if the results are reasonably good. But it creates a lot of problems when things go wrong in places like Iraq and Vietnam, which the American people know in their guts really don't matter and aren't worth dying for. So frankly, my sense of American history (and I am an American hisotrican by training) is that American elites don't care that much - if at all - about public opinion when it comes to foreign policy, only insofar as it can be harnessed - ie sentiment for revenge after 9/11 leads to Iraq - or it has to be massaged.

That said, I'd also argue that US public opinion has shaped policy makers against more hawkish action several times in recent memory - in Cental America in the 1980s and in Balkans in the 1990s. In both cases, I think that key executive branch players would have pushed for greater escalation. This is also perhaps true in Korea and Vietnam, all to a lesser extent, because the US had already layed itself out on the line a fair bit before public opinion got particulary hostile.

[Greg Sanders]

Follow-up comment. First, thanks Rob W., glad you like anti-interventionist better. If anyone has any negative comments on it, please let me know. (I think a non-trivial contigent in the anti-interventionist camp didn't oppose the war in Afghanistan, but that was a fairly special case).

Anyways, as an interventionist, I think squabbles with anti-interventionist aren't actually the big problem (although they tend to take a good chunk of time and are often unsatisfying for all involved). Heck, even the Democrats in Congress seem to still have a large block of fairly hard core interventionists. I doubt they're the majority at this point, but we aren't just talking Lieberman. I mean, who saw the Reyes anti-withdrawal statements coming? (While an interventionist, his comments still disturb me).

Anyways, I think the area for a major interventionist push is Afghanistan. Judging by previous discussions on this board, some anti-interventionist have given up on it. Others haven't. We need to make common cause with those that haven't and at very least stop the downward slide. According to the last polling I've seen (which was admittedly dated) the majority of Afghans still want our help. That's the area where interventionist agree emphatically and the one where we can do the most good.

On Iraq, I don't think there's ground for any common interventionist pushes. Some interventionist are still pulling for a victory. Some, like myself, still favor humanitarian intervention but are much more comfortable with anti-interventionist leaders calling for withdrawal. This isn't a gap that's going to be bridged by anything except events on the ground.

On the popular-elite thing. I think things go both ways. My analysis is that Americans were willing to support the war until it became really obvious that we were losing badly. I would certainly have prefered a more anti-interventionist electorate because they'd have kicked Bush out in 2004. Similarly, the fact that the torture issue has never really reverberated (in part a failure of leadership, but Foley seemed to have an order of magnitude more traction than any prisoner mistreatment issues). I don't think the American public strongly supports either the Liberal interventionist or anti-interventionist camps. Probably, internally consistent foreign policy positions are mostly an elite area. I'd quite agree with Will Fettes, the American public isn't about to go strongly dovish.

(Also, wow, some nice comments on this thread.)

[Rachel Kleinfeld]

Ali’s post on the Truman Democratic movement calls for comment—and since I co-founded the Truman National Security Project, it seems to fall on me. We would love to have a movement of Truman Democrats. We welcome everyone who shares our beliefs to stand with us. But ours must be a movement that unites—not one that divides the left.

What makes a Truman Democrat?

If you would honestly be proud if your best friend, son, daughter, significant other, or spouse joined the military;

If you believe that the values we profess at home must also be practiced abroad, and that the left must support democratization, human rights, union rights, and economic opportunity in other countries—and must stand very clearly against regimes or movements such as fundamentalist Islamism that deny their citizens these basic rights.

If you believe that there are real threats in the world that at times require military intervention—for national interests, and for the sake of protecting humanity—and you also realize that successful use of American power requires legitimacy, and a plan for success.

If you feel that America is an example to the world when we live up to our own ideals, but that we have no God-given right to exceptionalism—and that our power is most successfully implemented when channeled into alliances.

Well, then, you have every right to call yourself a Truman Democrat. And we welcome you into the movement, whoever, and wherever you are.

Many have tried to make the Iraq War the dividing line for whether one is a Truman Democrat or not. That’s a stupid line to draw—many, many Truman Democrats were against the war, because they feared the exact consequences that occurred. Belief should never trump facts on the ground.

In Europe, where the left is falling into xenophobia, anti-Americanism, and pretty serious anti-Semitism, there is a great need for the Euston Manifesto that forced people to choose sides.

But America is not Europe.

On our side of the pond, Democrats have just won back both houses of Congress, and have a chance to pass legislation that could deeply change our country for the better.

There are people of the left who are strongly anti-interventionist, who did not support the Afghanistan War as well as the Iraq War, who would not agree with the statements above—they are not Truman Democrats. But regardless, now is not the time for purges—it is the time to come together around as much as we can that unites us, and work together to make a real change in American foreign policy that will really keep our country more secure, and our world safer.

Anyone who wants to join that movement, is welcome.

[Don Bacon]

RK,
Belief should never trump facts on the ground.

The "facts on the ground" are that the United States of America, in every international opinion poll that I have seen, enjoys a very low popularity, as it does in Europe as you mention. Particularly in the Arab and Muslim worlds we are hated because of our pro-Zionist stand. The poor reputation that we have garnered has been as a direct result of the policies that the Truman Democrats espouse, primarily economic and military intervention in other peoples' affairs. These are people that tend to say: We like you Americans but we don't like your government--its arrogance and its policies.

Non-Americans have ample evidence of the damage that our interventions have caused: Vietnam, Central America, Iraq and Afghanistan most recently but also going back in history to all the countries the US has invaded. And Harry Truman's show-off-for-the-Russians extermination of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians at Horishma and Nagasaki wasn't a big hit either.

Protecting humanity? The US Air Force alone has killled (and is killing) more civilians than any military force in history. Those are the "facts on the ground."

The reasons for these interventionist wars, while it is propagandized in the US to be idealistic, are well-known to non-Americans--power and money. The current exercises in Iraq are no different--oil reserves in Iraq and access to the Caspian Basin oil reserves in Afghanistan.

Anyone who wants to join the "facts on the ground" movement is welcome.

[Marion Delgado]

"a bunch of neo-imperialistic colonizers.

This is what the Truman Democrats are going to be called by their Isolationist Leftist brethren."

O pas du tout! I mean, you're leaving out lying Republican moles, evil Quisling Bush-fellating assclowns, vicious accomplices to mass murder .... we could go on all day. You creeps are busted, and no amount of lying crap proceeding from you is going to change that.

The American people don't WANT you. You are headed for the ash-heap of history. We finally noticed how people like you stick knives in any "friends" stupid enough to turn their back to you.

Oh and that all you have on offer is lies, corruption, murder, environmental destruction, racism, class warfare on the side of the rich, corporate governance, etc. Please, please die. And take the remnant nest of Scoop Jackson vipers with you.

[Kenneth Almquist]

"A Truman Democrat wants to use diplomacy to engage the regional powers, wants to engage the Iraqi police so the country does not descend into nefarious sectarianism..."

We've been engaging the regional powers since 2002 (when Bush set up the "coalition of the willing"). What makes you think that another year or two of engagement will accomplish anything that hasn't already been accomplished?

Perhaps you hope that Bush will have an epiphany and suddenly realize that we are more likely to persuade Iran and Syria if we talk to them than if we don't. That's certain a nice wish, and while you are wishing that Bush would grasp the basic principles of diplomacy, you can wish for a pony as well.

I don't know what you mean by "engag[ing] the Iraqi police," but we've provided funding, training, and equipment to the Iraqi police, some of whom are now reportedly acting as death squads or selling their equipment on the black market. Continuing to do what we have been doing and hoping for a better outcome is not an approach that is likely to result in success.

There are lots of people on the American left who think that the war in Iraq is unwinnable and don't think that America should sacrifice additional lives and treasure in a war that America is going to lose in any case. That's not the same thing as rejecting the principles underlying Truman's foreign policy, because Truman never sacrificed American lives and power in the persuit of a pipe dream.

[ckreiz]

Excellent essay. In the post-McGovern Democratic Party, there are around 127 of us Truman Democrats left. That excludes a gang of widely stubborn Yellow Dog Democrats, but most of them are now Yellow Dog Republicans.

[marlena]

To Ms Kleinfeld,

I was wondering if you will ever write a
follow-up piece to the essay you wrote earlier in the war on the butterfly effect,
as well as on the allowing the army to take control of Iraq rather than utilize a
multi-lateral approach to the occupation.

The army has done a miserable job (and here I mean the leadership not the soldiers, and I mean the civilian leadership).

Will the judgment of the Truman Democracts be just as miserable in the future?