This past weekend I had the honor of participating in the YearlyKos panel, "War, Foreign Policy & Activism." It was a pleasure to discuss a variety of foreign policy issues with an informed panel and audience, and Ms. Huffington was kind enough to ask me to post my opening remarks on this site. It's not quite the same in pixels as with an audience, but I hope this helps explain why the Democratic Party is the one to trust with our nation's foreign policy.
Good morning. My name is Alex Rossmiller, and I am a former Intelligence Officer for the Department of Defense. I left government service because I became convinced that the policies of this administration, and in fact the very grounding of many conservative foreign policy ideals, harm American security and impair American interests.
So far this morning you've heard about what U.S. foreign policy is, and what it is not. You've also heard how Democrats can work to expose the unsuccessful administration efforts, both in strategy and tactics. I would like to briefly articulate the Democratic alternative that is both practical and popular.
The central foreign policy issue for Americans in at least the next two elections is clearly the war in Iraq. I spent over six months in Iraq last year, and many more months working the issue at the Pentagon, and it is beyond my comprehension how a reasonable observer could believe anything but the fact that the Iraq war has made the U.S. less safe. It has overstretched our forces, created a lawless area for terrorists to learn their deadly craft, established a constant source of recruiting for militant Islamists across the globe, and destabilized a region on which we depend for economic well-being. Stay the course is a ridiculous notion when the course is wrong. All real Democrats can embrace a single message on Iraq: Change the course. Change the course.
Iraq is an issue that resonates very powerfully at both national and local levels. Further, the broad foreign policy campaign message is a simple one: Do you want this administration to screw up anything else like it's screwed up Iraq? We cannot trust these deciders on Iran. We cannot trust them on North Korea. We cannot trust them on trade, or intelligence, or defense. In 2006 we can establish oversight in Congress, and in 2008 we can elect a president who understands that freedom isn't on the march if you're marching in combat boots.
The fundamental goal of foreign policy is to use international relations to advance American interests. These interests are primarily twofold: security, and economic, or business. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no overarching framework in U.S. foreign policy, and for a while we were mostly reactive, relying on pragmatism to advance our interests. After 9/11, however, anti-democratic forces were once again viewed as a significant threat, and the so-called global war on terror began. The idea was to combine democracy promotion with forceful defense and aggressive action against transnational terrorists. The Bush administration, however, has betrayed this ideal - and this nation - by pursuing bad policy after bad policy, including the epic mistake of Iraq.
As Ari explained, this administration has treated a tactic - terrorism - like an ideology. Ideology cannot be defeated with weapons, even if its practitioners sometimes can. The best way to defeat an ideology, whether fascism, communism, or militant religious fanaticism, is simply to offer a better alternative. Democrats and Republicans agree that self-determination is this better alternative. Democracy is the governmental ideology best suited to move the world towards stability and civil liberties, and nothing better has yet been invented. In terms of security, mature democracies do not attack us and we don't attack them. They help the world economy through trade and foster security through governments responsible to their citizens. Encouraging and supporting democracy, therefore, is a basic foreign policy ideal that helps America towards peace and prosperity.
Wars are good for toppling governments. But war is a very, very bad method of establishing infrastructure and institutions. There is a vast difference between promoting democracy and imposing it. The latter is a recipe for war, economic injury, and, eventually, reactionary isolationism.
Despite what the media might say, Democrats largely agree on foreign policy. Our differences are often more rhetorical than real, and the vast majority of us believe that democracy is good, but implementing it by force is bad. Of course armed conflict is sometimes necessary, but wars of choice, in the absence of a clear and present danger to our nation's security, are terrible and dangerous foreign policy.
Unfortunately, this administration, and many conservative intellectuals, grossly misunderstand what it takes to establish a democratic society. Does anyone really expect an administration that hinders democracy in its own country to have the ability to cultivate it abroad? The basis for functional democracies is not votes, but institutions and infrastructure. An elected government that cannot provide for its people's basic needs is a failed one, and one likely to become bellicose, dangerously nationalistic, and autocratic.
I do not believe that Democratic values and strategies in foreign policy need to be significantly revised. I also do not believe that we should have huge message problems. America now knows that Republicans cannot be trusted with foreign policy. The foreign policy powers of the presidency mean that whether or not Democrats have a unitary position on international affairs is currently meaningless in terms of actual policy, so for Congressional elections, the people need to know that the Republican president is doing it badly and we need a Democratic majority Congress to provide checks and balances. No more rubber stamp Congress.
I'd like to close by appealing to two small but important groups in our party. To those who have lost faith in internationalism, don't close your minds or your hearts to foreign policy. Isolationism is not a solution, and Democrats have the capability and the will to right the ship. And to Democrats who believe the party is unserious or at risk of being taken over by fringe elements with regard to foreign policy, I ask that you stop going on TV to talk about those views. No, I'm kidding of course, but this is a party that understands internationalism. The people whose sanity we should worry about are those who say we'll know how Iraq will turn out in six months . . . every six months.
The netroots understand these issues. Markos Moulitsas, an inspiration for this conference, is a former enlisted soldier. John Aravosis of AmericaBlog has a Masters degree in Foreign Affairs and spent years working for the State Department. And I've learned more about international trade from Atrios of Eschaton than I ever did from Econ classes. The netroots are not unserious, or uninformed, or radical when it comes to foreign policy. I wish those straw men arguments could be put away forever so the entire party can focus on the true problem in American foreign policy: Republicans. But we have to embrace these issues and make them our own. Because while foreign policy rarely wins elections, it can certainly lose them.
Finally, what you, we, can do to help. Talk about it on your blogs. Talk about it in the comments. Stay informed, and let your representatives know that you care about it. If you write a book about foreign policy, have it be about how the Bush administration has screwed everything up, rather than perpetuating the Republican talking point that Democrats are wussies. And, for the love of God, donate money to Ned Lamont.
Gaining both internal agreement and public confidence in this issue will not be effortless, but foreign policy is done best by Democrats. We identify and criticize dangerous foreign policy initiatives not in spite of our patriotism, but because of it. Let's run on it, not from it, and confidently move forward on an issue that we . . . should . . . own. Thank you.