Did I Support the Iraq War? Um, No. Posted by Shadi Hamid

The extended back-and-forth with Atrios yesterday was a bit tiring, although instructive for various reasons. I wasn't going to post anything else on it, but then I saw this post from John at Dymaxion World, where he says "Atrios has been taking Shadi Hamid to task for basically being a pro-war voice." He then asks:

Could we please, please think up some foreign policy that doesn't amount to Republican-lite, "the US should slap around small countries when necessary"?

This deserves a quick response. It is unfortunate that Atrios, his readers, and now John at Dymaxion have assumed that I'm a war supporter or that I ever was. Wrong on both counts. They concluded that since I said something positive about Will Marshall, that meant that I endorse or agree with his views on Iraq. I don't. In these pages, I've also had good (and sometimes very good) things to say about Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan, Kos, Stephen Krasner, and (God forbid) even Condi Rice. Yet, I don't agree with any of them on Iraq. My actual position on the war is discussed here and here. Not only was I against the war in the first place, but, more recently, I expressed opposition to the surge in three long posts (1, 2, 3), as well as here. I also took Bob Kerrey to task and fisked him for his horrendous WSJ op-ed in support of the war/surge in May.

As for the claim that I advocate a Republican-lite foreign policy, the opposite is true. In fact, I co-wrote an op-ed in January where we said:

The national security plan congressional Democrats released last spring—"Real Security"—and the more recent "New Direction for America" include a lot of posturing about being tough and smart but little in the way of original ideas or overarching strategy. The message seemed to be: "don't worry, we can be just as strong as Republicans," which isn't exactly a rousing call-to-arms.

Also, in these pages, I wrote:

The problem is that many Democrats fall into the trap of “overcompensation,” that, fearful of being painted as soft on security, we take public positions that appear contrived, because they are in fact contrived, a function of our obsession with polls and focus groups more than a function of deeply-held liberal values. And if there are, in fact, liberals/progressives out there who genuinely support the Patriot Act without reservation then it calls into serious question how exactly our liberal values inform our approach to national security.

Comments

[Atrios]

It's very unfortunate that your readers now think I claimed you were pro-war, something I never did.

[Bob Narus]

First off, thanks for clarifying/reminding us of your position on the Iraq War. Please remember that not everyone reads your every word, so it's important to make that clear on occasion, especially when you're doing something like defending a noted hawk. (And I do think that's a fair label for Will Marshall.)

Second, just as your "discussants" have mischaracterized you, so have you mischaraterized them. In a post yesterday, you drew the distinction between "people who want a value-centric foreign policy, and those who want an interest-centric foreign policy." I doubt even you really believe this. You're an admitted idealist (and I mean that as a compliment!) who believes that the morally right foreign policy for the United States will also be in the country's narrower security interest. Well, so do the Kossacks. The real differences between you lie in the definition of a moral foreign policy.

All in all, I think those differences are fairly small. If we locked you and Atrios in a room, I think we'd find a remarkable coincidence of views. I don't believe the same thing could be said of Atrios and Will Marshall.

Which means, my friend, that you cannot straddle this fence forever. Eventually, you have to choose.

[liberalrob]

No, Shadi never said he was pro-war. What he said was, he liked Will Marshall. Will Marshall is/was pro-war. And so since none of us really know Shadi (I never even knew there was such a person until the post on Eschaton) the obvious conclusion is that if Shadi likes Marshall, Shadi agrees with Marshall. In my experience there are very FEW cases of people being able to tolerate someone they very much disagree with for any length of time, let alone like them. Carville and Matalin just boggles my mind. They must enjoy arguing with each other.

If nothing else, this has illustrated the depth of feeling out there. If you want a calm, reasonable discussion of something related to Iraq, you're probably not going to get it. Too much blood has been spilled.

[destor23]

From Reuters, October 23rd, 2002:

"Shadi Hamid, who studies international politics at Georgetown, said he hoped the weekend protests would set off a peace movement in the United States on the scale of the 1960s.

"In the '60s, before the Vietnam War got started there was very little opposition among Americans. It's different now. People are really worried about Iraq, and we're mobilized already," he said. "All we hear from this president is 'war, war, war' ... We can't let this go on any longer."

That was you, right?