By Brian Beutler
No one has seemed more surprised by the Democrats' success in pushing an exit strategy for Iraq than the Democrats.
Their aggressiveness and unity on a major foreign-policy challengeto the president is a striking change for a party that has, on manyoccasions over many years, seemed to be on the defensive on nationalsecurity issues.
In fact, for much of the post-Vietnam era, the Republican advantageon those issues has been a defining feature of American politics. ManyDemocrats felt they needed to prove, again and again, that their partywas tough enough to defend the nation's interests — to fight thenotion, often stoked by Republicans, that Democrats were the party ofGeorge McGovern and the nuclear freeze.
My immediate instinct when reading media analyses of the nationalsecurity policies of the two main parties is to cringe. But these leadparagraphs sound about right, and seem to imply that Democrats arebeginning to feel more sure footed about the revolutionary idea that"defending the nation's interests" does not necessarily require being"tough enough".
That's not to say that the change is permanent. It's easy to beunified against something as bloody (and as unpopular) as the Iraq war.It's a fact that seems to embolden analysts into suggesting that, tomaintain their advantage, Democrats should invent problems that requiretoughness so that they can solidify their foreign policy bona fides:
The broader question is whether the war forges anenduring change in the Democratic Party, its stance and its credibilityon national security. Many strategists are already warning that overthe long haul, it is not enough to be antiwar: the Democrats need astrong, affirmative vision of foreign policy.
“If getting out of Iraq defines entirely who the Democrats are onnational security, then over the long run, it will be a disaster,” saidMatt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic group.Rather, Iraq needs to be part “of a larger strategy aimed at showinghow to protect America's national security interests,” he said.
Fortunately the author of this article helps offset Bennett's bullshit withsome more sophisticated insights from Gary Hart. For those insights,click the link. But really: the suggestion that it will be disastrousfor Democrats if they succeed in extricating us from the howling chaosof Iraq is absurd. The idea that, to forestall that disaster, theDemocrats should...I dunno...plan to invade Iran is dangerous. And thefact that a think tank like Third Way has any traction with theDemocratic party on foreign policy is astonishing.
Cross posted at Brian Beutler
