Les Jones: Is the Party Out of Power Always Critical of the Current War?

August 02, 2007

Politics > Is the Party Out of Power Always Critical of the Current War?

In the second presidential debate against Al Gore, Bush declared "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building". In fact, that was a major campaign point. He blasted Clinton and Gore for their intervention in Somalia and the Balkans. And many Republicans backed him up, saying it was time for the United States to pull back away from being the "World's Policeman". Ask anyone on the street today, and how many people would remember that at all?
My point is this. When a Democrat is President, the Republicans blast the wars they participate in as ill timed and poorly managed. Anyone who disagrees needs to look back at how Newt Gingrich's Congress went after Clinton for Somalia and Kosovo before you comment. And now when a Republican is in charge, the Democrats are doing the same thing.

But is there really any doubt that if a Democrat were to win next year that s/he wouldn't be just as much of an interventionist as every other President in history when push comes to shove? That power to fight a war is a lot different when you're in charge, and not just watching from the sidelines. So while some of the nutty folks at Reason are saying that you should vote Democrat in order to avoid more war, I'm saying that any Democrat who becomes President will be just as likely to go to war as any Republican. Republicans are just more up front about it.

Posted by lesjones | TrackBack

Comments

To believe that any politician is "up front" about anything is awfully naive. They say what they think will get them elected and do what they want to stay in office.

There should be term limits for all elected officials.

IMHO

Posted by: Mike at August 02, 2007

I have no doubt whatsoever that had Al Gore won the 2000 Election, we would be in almost exactly the same situation we are today with Bush as President. It would simply be the Republicans criticizing the war in Iraq and not Democrats. For the same reason you cite.

Posted by: Barry at August 02, 2007

There's more than a grain of truth in this, but I think there really is a difference between the two parties. Since Vietnam, a firm pattern has emerged: he democrats will willingingly go to war only for humanitarian reasons, only if the war is small and short, and only if it does not materially advance American interests. Republicans will go to war only to advance American interests, and only if they are in it to win.

Yes, Bush Sr's adventure in Somalia is an exception, and I'm sure there are others, but I think the general point is a good one. Democrats do love those selfless peace-keeping missions, so long as they can pull out when the fighting gets ugly. Republicans are the only ones who are willing to stick around once the call of 'quagmire' start to be heard.

Posted by: Mike at August 03, 2007

Mike, you're definitely onto something. From Charles Krauthammer:

The only conclusion one can draw is that for liberal Democrats, America's strategic interests are not just an irrelevance, but a deterrent to intervention. This is a perversity born of moral vanity. For liberals, foreign policy is social work. National interest - i.e., national selfishness - is a taint. The only justified interventions, therefore, are those which are morally pristine, namely, those which are uncorrupted by any suggestion of national interest.
Hence the central axiom of left-liberal foreign policy: The use of American force is always wrong, unless deployed in a region of no strategic significance to the United States.

I've heard more than one liberal say that we were crazy to go into Iraq, then follow that by saying that what we should have done was gone into Iran, or Darfur.

Posted by: Les Jones at August 03, 2007

Pull US troops out of [a href="http://www.tffalcon.hqusareur.army.mil/">Kosovo now!

Where's our exit strategy for the Balkan quagmire?

Posted by: Tam at August 03, 2007