"Stand Principled" -- Without Principles!

Marc Grinberg, Rachel Kleinfeld, and Matthew Spence from the Truman National Security Project take to the virtual pages of The Democratic Strategist to offer up their take on the politics of national security. Elements of what they say I agree with. Their suggested Iran messaging, however, is redolent of the I-want-to-pull-my-hair-out aspect of the "decent left"

If any issue should arouse the passion of Democrats, it is the spread of nuclear weapons to a radical Iranian government. Iran is a nation that stones women, publicly executes homosexuals, suppresses its minorities, and has violated the most basic human rights we fight for as Democrats. Allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon would strengthen this government's hand against their own people. And nuclear proliferation--which would spread from Iran to the rest of the region--poses the greatest human rights abuse of all: threatening to destroy millions of lives in a war or a nuclear accident.

This is, how shall I say it, um, "utterly vacuous." It's a message in support of, what, exactly? Bombs away? Messaging, obviously, is an important thing in the world. But it's genuinely the case that before you think about the best message on some issue, you need to think a little bit about the policy. You're trying to determine a message that sells the policy. Here, we seem to be simply trying to talk tough while not committing the speaker to anything in particular. But if you don't think the United States should bomb Iran, than simply ramping up the level of Iran-related paranoia is a terrible idea; you're only going to box yourself into an impossible political corner if the bombs drop. Alternatively, if you do support a bombs away policy, it would be better to just say so.

I like Heather Hurlburt's ideas a lot better.

10/7/06 10:54AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

The anti-Iran rhetoric is so oberblown that it requires some rebuttal.

Suppose that Iranian really want to make nukes. Why they would be inclined to do so?

First reason cited was "it would strenghten this government's hand against their own people". WTF? It is safe to say that Iranian hardliners do very well in that respects without resorting to nukes. Second, it is "threatening to destroy millions of lives in a war or a nuclear accident". This is just not true. Nukes made by India and Pakistan are of extramally small yield and they do not threaten to increase the number of victims in a potential war much above what happens in a conventional conflict. "Wiping out" Israel is not within technological reach of Iran even if it was so inclined, and the retaliatory capabilities are more than adequate.

Second, making nuclear weapons is not what Iran ostensibly plans to do, and they can be kept to their word, to a degree. They offered several control mechanisms. The plan to have nuclear power generators should not be objected to, nor there are any treaties that would make it objectionable. There are not even any treaties preventing them from nuclear enrichment.

Third, the true motives of Iranian government seem transparent: calibrate an issue of contensions that would drive USA government to conniptions and allow them to prevail, thus making us loose our face and build up their domestic popularity. Iran has separate plans and means to deter any attack on their soil: we would need to defend our assets in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Strait of Hormuz, and our command center in Qatar etc., and I am ready to bet that in at least one area, but perhaps in several, it would be really nasty.

Fourth, they are many years, at best, from any credible nuke potential, and the government is not all that stable. We should have a reasoned policy denying the leaders cheap rhetorical victories and strenghtening the democratic opposition. Not making a big issue of the enrichment program may be a part of that.

Posted by: piotr on October 7, 2006 11:49 AM

The trouble with the current policy is that it is simply Paranoia enshrined as policy. The neocons believe that we should simply bestride the world like the Colossus of yore. Therefore any other power in the world is a threat to that. Paranoia elevates challenge to menace.

Iran's a deeply contradictory country and the thought of it possessing nukes is vexing, but vexation isn't an attack on us and we honestly can't gin it up to that. (Hence the propaganda campaign.)

Bush doesn't understand power. He understands dominance and payback which aren't the same thing. He treats all challenges the way a Mafia capo would. That isn't foreign policy like either Grandma or George Kennan used to make.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 7, 2006 12:02 PM

Good post. Someone has to take on the whole demonization of "evil" foreigners thing. Hopefully it will be the Democrats. This whole paranoia/demonizing thing is just what is getting us into these wars.

Posted by: MQ on October 7, 2006 01:00 PM

Yeah, I hear ya. And I agree with you about not wanting to pour rhetorical gasoline on a stack of wood the neo-cons and Bush are only too happy to set ablaze.

Still--remember Mark Schmitt's wise adage about policy pronouncements: policies are often viewed by what they say about *you*, the proponent of them.

Sure, in wonk heaven, people choose their policies just based on what's right. But alas, here in hack hell we have to think about the messages that our stances send.

Sounding tough can't be the be all and end all--if that were effective foreign policy, Bush would not have done such a hellaciously bad job. But sounding tough is not nothing, either, especially when thinking about domestic politics.

Posted by: kid bitzer on October 7, 2006 02:32 PM

Well, so much for the idea that what the Dems need is a phalanx of think-tanks, pumping clouds of pompous rhetoric.

If the world survives the coming crisis, there may be leisure to reflect on why think-tanks don't work.

In the meantime, it's left, as usual, to those of us who don't have a juicy contract for high level thinking to come up with some solutions.

If we're lucky, Americans will realize that the money we spend on the military could pay for energy independence, in the form of renewable energy that would end our part of the carbon crisis.

If we're not lucky, you can stop worrying about Social Security, or the cost of drugs in your old age. A lot of people just won't be having an old age.

What Iran does about homosexuals is pretty small potatoes compared with our real problems. Time to grow up and realize that.

Posted by: serial catowner on October 7, 2006 02:51 PM

> 1. Democrats are deeply suspicious of
> messaging guidance.

Personally, I am deeply suspicious of any guidance that comes from any group that includes "Lieberman staffers". As Frank Rich stated in the NYRoB this month, the fundamental problem here is that people who were deeply, blindly, and (yes) stupidly wrong about Iraq and George W Bush [1] now want to tell the rest of the party that the wrong-deciders are still the grown-ups and the rest of us should listen to their "serious" advice. Presumably being utterly wrong about a decision which may mean the end of the Republic is the credential one needs to be serious. Until those people are told to sit quietly for 20-30 years I really can't take seriously anything a group including them does.

I realize this will provoke eye-rolling among the "serious Democrats" community, but there you have it. This is a non-negotiable item for me and many others I know - many of whom are quite conservative by Democratic standards.

Cranky

[1] A moderatly important and embarrassing thing to be wrong about one would think.

Posted by: Cranky Observer on October 7, 2006 03:06 PM

Good post. Mr Grinberg and friends do not suggest what the result of the Democratic passion should be but it seems obvious they are urging some sort of military action. But what I find chilling about the words quoted above are these: "Iran is a nation that stones women, publicly executes homosexuals, suppresses its minorities, and has violated the most basic human rights we fight for as Democrats." Damn, I thought, isn't that what people were writing about Iraq just before we invaded that country.

Posted by: Savin H. Woods on October 7, 2006 04:43 PM

Kid Bitzer: It doesn't make you sound "tough" to make hysterical claims that some nation is evil made manifest on earth and then come out against bombing that nation. Quite the reverse, in fact.

This kind of vicious caricature of Iran isn't just preliminary throat-clearing to a policy statement, as some inside the beltway types seem to think. It's a crucial concession that gives away the whole field to the neo-cons.

I agree with Cranky -- the whole Democratic pro-Iraq foreign policy establishment is deeply corrupt. I certainly don't trust them absent evidence of some real soul searching about assumptions of U.S. dominance and the proper place of U.S. military power in the world. I haven't seen such evidence.

Posted by: MQ on October 7, 2006 08:36 PM

And not only is this comments thread more thoughtful than the product of the "Truman National Security Project", it's also better written. Why do the products of our "policy professionals" have to be so obviously mealy-mouthed?

Posted by: MQ on October 7, 2006 08:40 PM

I believe our friends from the firm of Grinberg, Kleinfeld, and Spence hail from the "Democrats should say whatever needs to be said to wing elections" wing of the Democratic Party, not the wing of the Democratic Party which overly-gives a fuck about Iran (I have a difficult time believing that such a wing of the Democratic Party actually exists).

Being from the I don't especially like to bomb people but don't have much sway with those who do or otherwise will wing of the Democratic Party, I register my obligarory protest (blah blah blah) about hackishness and foolishness and this is how we got into Vietnam (although - you know - at least we got Medicare out of that one).

Posted by: Linus on October 7, 2006 11:11 PM

Oh dear so many spelling errors. Sleep more, drink less...

Posted by: Linus on October 7, 2006 11:12 PM

Good post. Especially the point about messaging and policy. I think one could make the same point about all the tough-talk toward Chavez. What exactly is the policy behind that feigned outrage from a few Democrats last month--do those Democrats want to censor future speeches at the UN so no one makes any Bush jokes? Do they want regime change in Venezuela? There was nothing behind the talk. It was seemingly nothing but a maneuver against the Fox News typecasting of liberals, that they're not sufficiently belligerant and xenophobic.

Posted by: Murph on October 8, 2006 01:37 AM

Stoning is deplorable.

When our Saudi friends want to execute an adulterer, male or female, they do it by decapitation. Much more humane.

Posted by: David Tomlin on October 8, 2006 02:54 AM

Wasn't all that reasons to go into Afghanistan?

We abandoned that project pretty damn fast. Why do these "serious liberals" think it would be better in Iran? It wouldn't, you'd have burquas popping up while the neo-cons declare that the next target is Syria.

Posted by: Dan on October 8, 2006 09:41 PM

"If any issue should arouse the passion of Democrats, it is the spread of nuclear weapons to a radical Iranian government. Iran is a nation that stones women, publicly executes homosexuals, suppresses its minorities, and has violated the most basic human rights we fight for as Democrats."

Fortunately, up to this point, only the most virtuous of nations have aquired the bomb. Heaven forbid that a nation that suppresses its minorities get it!

Posted by: Njorl on October 9, 2006 12:47 AM

thanks

Posted by: çiçek sipariş on October 4, 2007 03:33 AM

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması

Posted by: www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması on December 4, 2007 04:52 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Posted by: sohbet on December 27, 2007 09:03 AM

Posted by: hikayetube on January 31, 2008 11:17 AM

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye
chat
magazin
chat
Sohbet
tuzcuoğlu
perde
oto kiralama

Posted by: clubgenclik on February 27, 2008 10:02 AM

thank you

Posted by: cep program, symbian program on May 5, 2008 06:13 AM

sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
sex
porno
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

Posted by: sohbet on May 12, 2008 12:21 AM

mirc

Posted by: indir mirc on September 6, 2008 02:10 PM

Thank you very much for this information.

muhabbet
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
sevgi
mirc
chat
chat
mirc
sohbet
kelebek

Posted by: sohbet on September 9, 2008 08:39 AM

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com