Duncan writes:
"Serious" foreign policy discussions are really just wankery for the chattering classes. The clowns are in charge and they're going to do it their way. It's why I mostly just focus on the politics of it. It isn't that I don't think there are genuine issues that need to be dealt with, it's that the idiots in charge are unlikely to deal with them in sensible ways. And, in fact, their primary focus with the Iran issue is politics because they have no idea what to do about the situation. Best to just thump their chests and then have their surrogates like Marshall Wittman talk about the lack of Democratic chest thumping is is proof that they are "weak" on national security.
Duncan's right, but that doesn't make the perspective useful. Given the apparent mania of Ahmadinejad, the obviousness of Iran's weapons programs, their historical ties to terrorist groups (though less to al-Qaeda than Hezbollah), and the fact that their recent actions (and not some inexplicable neocon obsession) are pushing them atop the news cycle, Iran will be an issue. And Democrats, it has to be said, start from shaky ground here, for all the reasons Duncan lists. But simply lamenting the unfairness of it all and throwing disgusted asides at the punditocracy won't kill the urgency. So even if "serious" foreign policy discussions are wankery for the chattering class it is, ultimately, the chattering class who'll direct the coverage that decides whether Democrats are to be limp-wristed nancies in 2006 or important additives to coherent policy-making. And that requires "serious" policy discussion, if only because the image of it is important.
I won't pretend to be either the sort of foreign policy expert or savvy political strategist qualified to chart a way out this thicket, but it seems obvious enough that Democrats of both stripes should be all over the media talking up the issue. From where I sit, there are a couple fundamental points to be made, the first and most intuitive being that Iraq proved George W. Bush requires oversight and this country requires unity to effectively face down Iran. The Iraq War began with a fuzzy (if cynical and misguided) outbreak of bipartisan comity but, through the total marginalization of the Democrat, and the resulting failures of Bush's policies, it tore the country apart. It would thus seem wise to confront the next threat with input and investment from both sides, not blithe arrogance from one and frustrated carping from another. That way, all would be tied to the venture's success for their own reasons, not yoked to the failure of the other side to effectively conduct or critique the war. And that, in addition to being true, is the sort of bipartisan boosterism the chattering class loves.
It also goes without saying that this debate will prove different, if for no other reason that our options are laughably limited. There'll be no airstrikes, because one word from Khatami and Iraq changes from troubled to apocalyptic. As for invasion, yeah, you and what army? Not only do we lack a coalition of the willing, we lack a supply of the able. And given Bush's poll numbers and Iraq's condition, we're about as likely to staff our army through a draft as we are to deploy a division of heavily-armed, battle-tested leprechauns . So we're looking at a limited, if hysterical, conversation taking place in context of a busted deficit, a failed war, an overstretched military, an unpopular president, a disliked congress, and an ascendant opposition party. This is the post-post-9/11 moment, and if the structural factors, as Duncan points out, remain largely unchanged, the political environment is hardly recognizable. Democrats are understandably timid about entering a conversation about Iran, given the past demagoguery and cynicism of the right. But the fact is, we don't have a choice.
