John Edwards’ foreign policy speech today was a breath of fresh air: thoughtful and totally free of the typical Democratic defensive macho posturing. His ability to take the positions he has taken has been signficantly enhanced by the fact that he does not hold elective office. Only Chris Dodd has taken a confrontational approach on Iraq. Clinton and Obama both seem to be seeking safe ground.
In perhaps the highlight of the speech, certainly the part everyone is quoting, Edwards cries bullshit on the “war on terror”:
The core of this presidency has been a political doctrine that George Bush calls the “Global War on Terror.” He has used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his administration, from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to the war in Iraq. The worst thing about the Global War on Terror approach is that it has backfired—our military has been strained to the breaking point and the threat from terrorism has grown.
We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military that is mission-focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological pursuits. We need to recognize that we have far more powerful weapons available to us than just bombs, and we need to bring them to bear. We need to reengage the world with the full weight of our moral leadership.
What we need is not more slogans but a comprehensive strategy to deal with the complex challenge of both delivering justice and being just. Not hard power. Not soft power. Smart power.
…
The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world. As a political “frame,” it’s been used to justify everything from the Iraq War to Guantanamo to illegal spying on the American people. It’s even been used by this White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating threat levels leading up to elections, or by deeming opponents “weak on terror,” they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.
He sounds like a guy who has learned from his mistakes. It’s still hard to see how he could have made the big one in the first place, and I’m far too cynical to totally accept any politician at face value, but right now, of all the leading candidates, he’s the one who’s saying the right things most often. We’ll never know if he would have followed his own advice on the Iraq funding bill, but we do know that with the honorable exception of our own Chris Dodd, none of the current Senators running for president are willing to stand up to Bush.
Personally, I think the vote on the funding bill is now almost as important as the original war vote. Back then, it was really not so hard for non-politicians to see that an anti-war vote would wear well in the long term. It still doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. People hate Bush and they hate the war, and they’re going to hate Bush and the war even more a year from now. Politicians who can say they voted at every opportunity to stop this war will have the wind at their backs in 2008.
Addendum: Here’s Dodd on the funding measure:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXJeb0y9KeI[/youtube]
