Humanitarian Crises Illustrate Democrats’ Achilles Heel
The war-driven humanitarian crises in places like Lebanon and Sudan’s Darfur region are textbook examples of the number one hurdle the Democrats must overcome if we hope to gain the White House in 2008. Even liberals and those socialists on the Left, who hope to dislodge Republican control of Washington, know they must bridge the “security” gap that voters on both sides of the political spectrum feel is the Democratic Party’s main weakness. This is a harsh reality hammered home with blunt frankness in Paul Waldman’s book, Being Right Is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006).
Waldman lauds the Democrats’ traditional stance on a foreign policy “based on the progressive principles that enjoy wide support: a commitment to human rights, an unwillingness to send Americans to die without good cause, and an understanding of the importance of strong alliances between democratic nations.” However, what happens in Lebanon and Darfur will make or break the Democrat’s credibility on defense, and will seriously erode what little American confidence there is in multilateral cooperation with the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and the entire concept of “carrot and stick” negotiation.
While many Americans agree with aspects of a progressive foreign and national defense policy, Waldman writes, “they will need to be convinced that progressives have the toughness and strength to do what is necessary to defend the country.”
Americans must seriously examine the credibility, motives, and willingness of the United Nations to enforce their ceasefires and resolutions. The U.N. was impotent in Lebanon regarding Hizbollah. They are also notoriously composed of member states like Sudan, who in no way want to be on the receiving end some day of a U.S.-backed resolution to have foreign “peacekeepers” invade their soil and ruin their gig. United Nations peacekeepers are neither united nor can they successfully keep the peace. Remember Somalia? Rwanda? African Union troops are even more ineffective.
The murders, rapes, and genocide in places like Darfur, Rwanda, Somalia, and elsewhere will never be stopped by UN or African Union peacekeepers, because there is no “peace” to keep in those places. The so-called “ceasefires” and “peace agreements” are political ploys and outright shams, which are ignored as the shooting and hacking starts anew the next day. These regions are torn by full-blown civil war and fighting by warring tribes and factions jockeying for power and wealth. Understand this: civil war and fighting!
Despotic regimes with battle-hardened militaries and irregular militia forces aren’t afraid of “peacekeeping” troops, who aren’t really combat soldiers trained and equipped for serious, sustained offensive and defensive military operations against an enemy determined to hold on to power and execute genocidal plans. It remains to be seen whether or not UNIFIL, in addition to whatever scratch force Europe can muster, will be able to eventually disarm Hizbollah in Lebanon.
And there’s the rub.
Democratic politicians and activists, who have made a staple out of calls for bringing home the troops, while brandishing bumper stickers that read: WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER are caught between Iraq and a hard place, pardon the pun. The so-called Iraq “debacle” has honed Democrats’ anti-interventionist, almost isolationist tendencies, making them squeamish about sending American sons and daughters anywhere to fight for freedom. This is nothing new since the Democratic Party has always been reluctant to distance itself from “Vietnam Syndrome,” the last residual symbol of anti-war activism’s power, which it clings to like a tattered badge of honor (look how many times Democratic and leftist anti-war advocates have tried to compare Iraq to Vietnam).
The nobility of the Democratic Party and its activist stalwarts is that deep down, we’d love nothing more than to “send in the Marines” to kick butt in places like Rwanda and Darfur, crushing the dictators and smiting evil warlords, while dragging those guilty of mass murder in chains before international war crimes tribunals. We are torn by sensitive political issues, not least of which is the misplaced feeling among many Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Africans that sending European (read: white) troops to these Third World crises would smack of colonialism, triggering painful memories.
Democrats must realize, however, that enforcing U.N. resolutions and preventing genocide can only be done by NATO or U.S. combat troops, not U.N. or African Union “peacekeepers.” Many of us just can’t get ourselves to say it. It’s like the “Fonze” trying to say he’s sorry: “I’m saw…I’m saw…”
Can you imagine so-called “Progressive Democrats” Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry calling for U.S. military intervention in Darfur? “We need to in…inter…inter-vuh-vuh…” How do the Democrats tell their anti-war base “Iraq BAD! Darfur GOOD!” In the meantime, Republicans continue to launch broadsides against this “Achilles Heel,” accusing Democrats and “liberals” of being soft on terrorists, weak on defense, of appeasing dictators, and of being U.N. sycophants. This message will sink in and get through to the “security moms” across America, who think Al Qaeda is shopping at the mall down the street, and that a pansy Democrat in the White House will spell doom for the free world.
Americans need to wake up! What’s going on in the world is going to continue to affect the United States in a variety of ways; and it’s not about Democratic “Bush-hating” or Republican “war profiteering” either, although that is what the leftists in the party have tried to frame the debate as. Senator Hillary Clinton is wise to distance herself from the radical elements in our party, but she has a long way to go if she hopes to become the first woman President of the United States.
The war-driven humanitarian crises in places like Lebanon and Sudan’s Darfur region are textbook examples of the number one hurdle the Democrats must overcome if we hope to gain the White House in 2008. Even liberals and those socialists on the Left, who hope to dislodge Republican control of Washington, know they must bridge the “security” gap that voters on both sides of the political spectrum feel is the Democratic Party’s main weakness. This is a harsh reality hammered home with blunt frankness in Paul Waldman’s book, Being Right Is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006).
Waldman lauds the Democrats’ traditional stance on a foreign policy “based on the progressive principles that enjoy wide support: a commitment to human rights, an unwillingness to send Americans to die without good cause, and an understanding of the importance of strong alliances between democratic nations.” However, what happens in Lebanon and Darfur will make or break the Democrat’s credibility on defense, and will seriously erode what little American confidence there is in multilateral cooperation with the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and the entire concept of “carrot and stick” negotiation.
While many Americans agree with aspects of a progressive foreign and national defense policy, Waldman writes, “they will need to be convinced that progressives have the toughness and strength to do what is necessary to defend the country.”
Americans must seriously examine the credibility, motives, and willingness of the United Nations to enforce their ceasefires and resolutions. The U.N. was impotent in Lebanon regarding Hizbollah. They are also notoriously composed of member states like Sudan, who in no way want to be on the receiving end some day of a U.S.-backed resolution to have foreign “peacekeepers” invade their soil and ruin their gig. United Nations peacekeepers are neither united nor can they successfully keep the peace. Remember Somalia? Rwanda? African Union troops are even more ineffective.
The murders, rapes, and genocide in places like Darfur, Rwanda, Somalia, and elsewhere will never be stopped by UN or African Union peacekeepers, because there is no “peace” to keep in those places. The so-called “ceasefires” and “peace agreements” are political ploys and outright shams, which are ignored as the shooting and hacking starts anew the next day. These regions are torn by full-blown civil war and fighting by warring tribes and factions jockeying for power and wealth. Understand this: civil war and fighting!
Despotic regimes with battle-hardened militaries and irregular militia forces aren’t afraid of “peacekeeping” troops, who aren’t really combat soldiers trained and equipped for serious, sustained offensive and defensive military operations against an enemy determined to hold on to power and execute genocidal plans. It remains to be seen whether or not UNIFIL, in addition to whatever scratch force Europe can muster, will be able to eventually disarm Hizbollah in Lebanon.
And there’s the rub.
Democratic politicians and activists, who have made a staple out of calls for bringing home the troops, while brandishing bumper stickers that read: WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER are caught between Iraq and a hard place, pardon the pun. The so-called Iraq “debacle” has honed Democrats’ anti-interventionist, almost isolationist tendencies, making them squeamish about sending American sons and daughters anywhere to fight for freedom. This is nothing new since the Democratic Party has always been reluctant to distance itself from “Vietnam Syndrome,” the last residual symbol of anti-war activism’s power, which it clings to like a tattered badge of honor (look how many times Democratic and leftist anti-war advocates have tried to compare Iraq to Vietnam).
The nobility of the Democratic Party and its activist stalwarts is that deep down, we’d love nothing more than to “send in the Marines” to kick butt in places like Rwanda and Darfur, crushing the dictators and smiting evil warlords, while dragging those guilty of mass murder in chains before international war crimes tribunals. We are torn by sensitive political issues, not least of which is the misplaced feeling among many Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Africans that sending European (read: white) troops to these Third World crises would smack of colonialism, triggering painful memories.
Democrats must realize, however, that enforcing U.N. resolutions and preventing genocide can only be done by NATO or U.S. combat troops, not U.N. or African Union “peacekeepers.” Many of us just can’t get ourselves to say it. It’s like the “Fonze” trying to say he’s sorry: “I’m saw…I’m saw…”
Can you imagine so-called “Progressive Democrats” Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry calling for U.S. military intervention in Darfur? “We need to in…inter…inter-vuh-vuh…” How do the Democrats tell their anti-war base “Iraq BAD! Darfur GOOD!” In the meantime, Republicans continue to launch broadsides against this “Achilles Heel,” accusing Democrats and “liberals” of being soft on terrorists, weak on defense, of appeasing dictators, and of being U.N. sycophants. This message will sink in and get through to the “security moms” across America, who think Al Qaeda is shopping at the mall down the street, and that a pansy Democrat in the White House will spell doom for the free world.
Americans need to wake up! What’s going on in the world is going to continue to affect the United States in a variety of ways; and it’s not about Democratic “Bush-hating” or Republican “war profiteering” either, although that is what the leftists in the party have tried to frame the debate as. Senator Hillary Clinton is wise to distance herself from the radical elements in our party, but she has a long way to go if she hopes to become the first woman President of the United States.
posted by victor cass | 1:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home