Liberals and Iran

Just two days into his swanky blog on the Time magazine website, I already find myself both fascinated and frustrated by something Andrew Sullivan posted. Mr. Sullivan (lover of Bush's wars, critic of how Bush actually runs those wars), just to remind us he's no wimpy liberal, linked to this blog post elsewhere:
Liberal absurdities on Iran

The author, one Dan Drezner (an assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago), looks at how the liberal blogosphere is, in his opinion, downplaying the current Iran situation. He uses some random examples to back this up. To me, this all just comes off as standard "liberals/democrats can't be trusted with national security!" fare and I don't take that very seriously.

On behalf of liberals everywhere, I will defend our name.

For starters, in late 2002/early 2003, as the politicians and the all-too-gungho media ran around like chicken little screaming about Saddam's mushroom cloud, I never believed that Iraq was a threat to the United States, much less any nation outside its own borders. I always believed that the Bush administration was blowing smoke. The facts have vindicated this then-unamerican belief.

With that said, yes of course we should be worried about Iran. They are not an imminent threat as some would have us believe, but certainly a growing concern which has long been ignored. Anyone who doubts that need only listen to the words coming out of the mouth of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So yes, we are right to be concerned about Iran's goal to acquire nuclear materials (of course North Korea already has nukes and the Bush administration gave up the diplomatic agreements the Clinton admininstration had been working on with them, so this seems like standard pick-and-choose foreign policy). It is an indicator of how great that concern that many other countries are working with us on this matter after we shot our credibility and gave them all the finger 3 years ago.

This issue with liberals isn't Iran... it's the Bush administration. We just don't trust them.

Mr. Drezner tries to make another point over what he believes is a partisan issue, by linking to a New Republic posting which states:

Kos and MoveOn have conveniently convinced themselves that the war on terrorism is a mere subset of the struggle against the GOP. Whatever brings Democrats closer to power, ipso facto, makes the United States safer.

This may be true (I only read Kos occasionally so can't speak for his/their views), but that belief is just as equal on the other side. The Republicans, President Bush in particular, believe that they (and only they) are capable of protecting America from the 'evildoers'. They believe the very fate of the nation relies on their being kept in office and being given as much power as possible. In fact, they state this decidedly non-democratic ideal explicitly. Vice President Cheney said last year about people considering voting for John Kerry that "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States". So Drezner, and the New Republic, are kidding themselves if they think a 'us in power will make the U.S. safer' delusion is a liberal one.

This isn't about which party makes us safer (in theory people are equal there in the right hands); it's about the people running that party and the government.

So why then do liberals believe that, in terms of national security, the Democrats would be better suited to be in charge? They have been paying attention. Look at past foreign policy. Ronald Reagan, considered a hero for outspending the Soviet Union right into the political graveyard, is also the man whose administration built up Osama bin Laden and his muhjadeen in Afghanistan, as well as providing money and weapons to our 'ally' in Iraq Saddam Hussein until he became a problem for us. Bush the Elder went into Iraq but failed then to take out Saddam (whether he should've or shouldn't have was a highly debated issue inside his administration). And now George W. Bush has... well, have you seen Iraq? There is no question that the world has become a more dangerous place with President Bush and the neocons running the show.

That isn't to say that President Clinton was a perfect Commander-in-Chief, but any mistakes he made were on a far smaller scale, his success rate was higher, and he (*gasp*) showed compassion and concern for our troops and their well-being.

This idea that if liberals, or leading Democrats (who actually aren't that liberal compared to many in the blogosphere) were running things, the Iran situation would not be handled as aggressively as required is bull. Drezner himself notes, after listing the ways that we have responded to Iran thus far, that "The approach the Bush administration has pursued towards Iran -- multilateralism, private and public diplomacy, occasionally deferring to allies -- is besotted with the very tropes that liberals like to see in their American foreign policy. I'm still not sure what the end game will be with regard to Iran, but to date I can't see how a Kerry administration would have played its cards any differently than the Bush team.".

And that's the point. A Kerry administration likely would be proceeding exactly the same cautious way, but so many of the domestic messes that have distracted Bush would likely not be an issue. So far, the Bush administration appears to be taking the right steps with Iran (except for Dick "Am I capable of human emotion?" Cheney and his overly aggressive rhetoric), but Drezner notes a Democrat would do the same.

However, this newfound respect for the diplomatic approach is only because their hardball, shock-and-awe, "bring 'em on" approach with Iraq failed so miserably. And it is those failures which make liberals so paranoid and concerned about what's to come next. It is my personal belief that if a Democratic administration (ie. Al Gore) had been in power since 2001, that the foreign policy mistakes made (all but abandoning the real war in Afghanistan, invading Iraq and accidently creating a theodemocracy sympathetic to our enemies, and allowing al Qeada to regroup) would not have occurred. And then, when the growing concerns about Iran began to develop, we would be in a far better position to make our case (more allies, more credibility, an army not stretched and bloodied) for a decisive diplomatic solution.

So, in conclusion, yes liberals are extremely apprehensive and skeptical of the Bush administration as we proceed in our diplomacy efforts with Iran via the U.N. Security Council and other avenues. And who can blame us at this point? I also want to quickly note that Drezner doesn't mention how conservative blogs are discussing Iran. I check a few on a regular basis (mostly for my own amusement) and most of the people I have read are obsessing over Iran (better to keep their minds off Abramoff, Iraq, New Orleans, etc). In fact, many comes across as downright giddy at the thought of going in and kicking Ahmadinejad's ass. Case in point- Mr. Drudge's daily Iran war-baiting. If we end not going to war (and let's pray that's the case), I suspect many will be secretly upset at the President for acting like a pussy.

I hope that our fears and skepticism of this path are unfounded. But I also hope that the memories of Bush's supporters here aren't selectively short. Our fears are born not out of some sort of liberal madness, but rather the failures and hubris of an administration with one too many wars on its hands already.