Congressional Democrats and a New Foreign Policy

Congress traditionally makes foreign policy with a machete and not a scalpel, which is why the Founders rightly left most of the foreign policymaking to the Executive branch.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

If present trends hold, the GOP is about to lose its stranglehold on all of the branches of our government. Our system was not designed for one party rule (though there was only one party--the Federalist party-- at the start but that was unnatural and didn't last) and it works better when there are real checks and balances.

Once in control of the House, the Democrats will be eager to investigate what the current committee chairmen have been sweeping under the rug for the past 6 years. But I would hope that the Dems will also take time to consider the need for some active, positive initiatives in foreign policy. Congress traditionally makes foreign policy with a machete and not a scalpel, which is why the Founders rightly left most of the foreign policymaking to the Executive branch, but unusual times require unusual approaches.

On Iraq:

We cannot cut and run but not for the reasons the Bush administration says. As a result of the attempt to build a nation where one did not exist, we have actually created a crime/terrorism/ insurgency problem. Much of this problem will go away once we leave because it is linked to our occupation (I am not referring to Sunni-Shi'a hatred, which will remain a problem for whatever government is in Baghdad, but that should not be a strategic concern of ours). The Baathist bitter-enders and their teenage acolytes will then either focus their hatred on the Shi'a or melt away. But not all of the problem will go away and that's why just leaving is not the answer. There are still gangs of jihadists who will take advantage of the weak central government in Baghdad to plot against our allies and us. For this reason Congress should apply pressure on the Administration to redefine the mission from nation-building to counterterrorism and encourage a counterterrorism agreement with the Maliki government that assigns our armed forces the primary responsibility for policing Iraq's borders and continues a very tight and broad intelligence liaison for dealing with whatever remains of Iraq's al Qaeda group. Our troops do not need to be in Baghdad or Fallujah to fight Islamic extremism but we do need to apply pressure on the Iraqi-Syrian and perhaps the Iraqi-Jordanian border to complicate the movement and supply of foreign jihadists. The rest of our troops can then come home. Brave American troops will continue to die in Iraq, but not as many as now and, at least, for a mission that makes sense in a dangerous world.

This is both good politics and good policy. This would be real counterterrorism and allow the Iraqis to decide themselves, with or without violence, how they wish to construct their future. If they choose to use violence, however regrettable, this will be their choice. Our goal should be to try to contain this civil conflict so that outside powers do not intervene and jihadists groups do not benefit.

On North Korea:

Not surprisingly the Bush administration's Shock and Awe policy toward Pyongyang failed. We Americans are generally not very sensitive to how our power is perceived by outsiders. We scare people by our every existence. We have the most modern military and the largest economy in the world and we have Microsoft, Hollywood and Google. So, whatever we do we will be the target of envy and other countries will seek alliances or additional power on their own to keep us in check. But when we actually decide to scare other countries, as George Bush did with his Axis of Evil speech, then we are guaranteed to propel tin-pot dictators to go to great lengths to try to scare us in return. Since 1945 the best way to scare us is to acquire nuclear weapons. They are defense on the cheap. Is there any wonder that Iran and North Korea have pushed their nuclear programs so hard since 2002 and that Saddam lied about not having one? In the last year or so the Bush administration has been backing away from its original approach, using North Korea's neighbors in a last-ditch diplomatic effort to contain Kim Jung-il. This was a good approach but it came too late and was not combined with any significant direct Washington-Pyongyang initiatives. What Pyongyang wants is to survive and the tough question for congressional Democrats in 2007 will be whether to engage this regime or not. It is a truly nasty government that has starved its own people, assassinated foreign leaders and even kidnapped tourists. But it now has plutonium and probably a few nuclear devices (though primitive, one would suspect). There seems to be no alternative to direct engagement as the US once did with Mao Zedong, who killed far more people than Kim il-Sung or Kin Jong-il. Let's keep the North Koreans talking and contain them. Loose nukes are by far the greatest threat in the case of North Korea not a surprise attack on us or Seoul.

On Terrorism:

Here I suspect that the Democrats will have a hard time reorienting policy. We need a national dialogue on the real threat that includes discussing how and where money should be spent for homeland defense. On this issue I can't see Congress, whatever the party, actually taking the hit for telling people in some states that that they are not really al Qaeda (or post-al Qaeda) targets. It takes a lot of political courage to tell your constituents that the threat is not as great as they fear. The terrorist threat remains, and will for a long time, but five years after 9/11 this is shaping up to be more a global police and intelligence action than a World War III. The one exception is in Afghanistan and here the Democrats could play a very constructive role in forcing a re-evaluation of how we are fighting that war. There is a lot of evidence that the Taliban are resurgent (and have learned some tricks from the insurgents in Iraq) and we can't afford to let that continue.


But first it is up to the voters.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot