Neoconservatism With a Democratic Face
David Weigel | February 13, 2007, 8:36am
Great column by Christopher Hitchens, the most high-minded of the Clinton-haters, on why Hillary Clinton will never be a dove.
A man like John Edwards can back away from his own 2002 vote easily enough by suggesting that he was deceived by Republican propaganda, but he was barely in politics before 2000. Sen. Clinton, however, was not just in politics. She was in the White House. That's why she had to speak of "the four years" that had elapsed since the relationship between the United States and Iraq went critical once more.
And more on Bill's role ginning up war with Iraq.
After speaking to the U.N. General Assembly meeting of 2006, President Jalal Talabani of Iraq found himself in a room with President Bush and former President Clinton. He embraced them both. "Thank you," he said to Clinton, "for signing the law that called for the liberation of Iraq. And thank you, Mr. Bush, for being the one to implement it."
This is really it; this is why the spinning of Hillary's Iraq vote and the
cunning plans for how she can come out against an Iran war are doomed. Hillary's running as the "experience" candidate, but she actually has less experience in elected office than Barack Obama. The implication: She has the experience of living and working in the White House. And that White House laid some of the groundwork for the Iraq War. I don't know why reporters keep trying to break down her explanations for her 2002 vote; it'd be more useful to get her admit whether she would continue the foreign policy of her husband from 1993-2001. She would.
joe | February 13, 2007, 10:05am | #
The problem with Hitchens reasoning is that, yes, the Clinton administration did sign the Iraq Liberation Act, and bombed Iraq. It did not, however, commit to the invasion-overthrow-occupation-administrtion of the country during the years following the Act's passage. It did other things, such as supporting local opposition groups, defending the Kurds, enforcing the sanctions, and bombing the country on a semi-regular basis, to try to improve the chances of Saddam's government falling.
Hitchens tries to argue that having supported this legislation should be taken as de facto support for the invasion on Hillary's part, but there are literally years of evidence proving otherwise. Hitchens claims that Hillary's denunciation of the war would be a renunciation of Bill Clinton's foreign policy. That's a tough claim to swallow, since Clinton's foreign polcy didn't come anywhere near an invasion of Iraq.
As the actual, historical Clinton administration Iraq policy shows, it is entirely possible to believe that the president should have the authority to take military actions against the Saddam government, and even to try to remove him from power - in other words, to support the AUMF - without agreeing on the wisdom of the invasion.
The knock on Hillary (and Kerry) for their votes is not that they supported the war, but that trusted Bush to responsibly handle that authority. They've both said "I believe it was appropriate for the president to have that authority."
Well, I think they're wrong, and Robert Byrd was right. I think Congress should be a lot stingier with its warmaking power, and not subcontract it out to the President. That's what Hillary needs to be called on, not some counter-factual assertion that she wanted to invade Iraq like this, too.
joe | February 13, 2007, 12:47pm | #
lunchstealer,
On foreign policy, even the most hawkish iteration of liberalism is distinct from neoconservatism.
Liberalism views democracy/human rights and pro-Americanism as beting two distince axes, where neoconservatives don't really distinguish the two. Hence, liberals oppose coups against democratically elected pains in our asses, while neoconservatives endorse them.
Liberals believe democracy, human rights, and reform in foreign societies must develop organically from within those societies. Neoconservatives believe that they can be imposed from without. Think of a gardener vs. a carpenter.
Foreign policy liberals believe we should sometimes take action for moral reasons, even if doing so does not advance our vital interests. Neoconservatives are split on this question, and usually try to paper over the dispute by claiming that "our highest ideals and our vital interests are now one," and either inventing an interest-based justification for a humanitarian mission, or couching their opposition to a humanitarian mission in terms of priorities and limited capacity.
Liberalism views international endorsement for military action to be essential for our reputation as a good actor, and for the success of the actions we take. Neoconservativism supports unilateralism not just as acceptable, but as superior to a stance which allows other countries to have a say in how and when we go to war, regardless of whether they are our allies or what we can get from them. They view any influence other countries can have over our actions in purely negative terms.
Neoconservative foreign policy did indeed split with liberalism during Vietnam in order to push for a more activist program of using our military to "liberate" countries ruled by hostile governments, but it would be a mistake to reduce the distinctions to differing levels of enthusiasm for the use of force.
