Speaking of John Edwards, maybe you remember the major foreign policy address he gave to the Council on Foreign Relations back in May. It got a good deal of play, mainly because Edwards slammed President Bush's "war on terror" as only a political "slogan" used to beat down his opponents and to justify anything Bush wanted to do. But there were many other interesting nuggets to be found in it. In a way, if you look at the actual text of the speech, I don't know that Edwards disagrees with the president as much as he claims. I don't know that this will help him much, though.
So, to work. Let's see. Edwards says we need a "post-Bush", "post 9/11" foreign policy which will protect Americans "from 21st century threats." Hmmm---wouldn't that include global terrorism, as Bush argues?
Candidate Edwards does indeed call for an immediate withdrawal of between 40,000 and 50,000 American troops from Iraq. But note he also says that we'll have to retain "sufficient" forces in the region to prevent a bloodbath; he acknowledges that failing to do so could make Iraq into an Al Qaeda "safe haven." He claims we'll need "Quick Reaction Forces" in Kuwait and the Persian Gulf, and that we'll continue to need American troops in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone. Even the antiwar Mr. Edwards isn't for a total pullout.
But then he says we'll need to engage in a major "diplomatic offensive" to involve the rest of the world in Iraq's future. Yes, well, after a major withdrawal of troops and the signal being sent that a total pullout might just be inevitable, who's going to listen to us?
Former Senator Edwards said: "We need to get out of Iraq on our own timetable, not when we are forced to do so by events." Er, excuse me, Senator---aren't you urging us to get out of Iraq very soon, and aren't you suggesting we do so because "events" (the continuing "insurgency", American casualties, etc) are forcing our hand?
Mr. Edwards addresses the principles by which he, as commander in chief, would employ American force. One of these would be "to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors..." and "to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons..." Er, would Mr. Bush disagree with that? Didn't he say that a reason to act against Iraq was because Saddam Hussein had shown himself to be an aggressor and a supporter of terrorists?
Mr. Edwards says "...the U.S. does not need permission to protect its interests..." Mr. Bush is right with you there. And Bush consulted with the UN concerning Iraq, and sought authorization for his actions from the Security Council, time and time again.
Edwards suggests we can reduce terrorism by leading a global fight against poverty. But Senator, we've been a leader among nations for decades now in our contributions to charitable causes, in our granting of humanitarian aid in case of disaster (remember the tsunami in Asia?). Has any of that made one iota of difference to Al Qaeda extremists?
Never mind Mr. Edwards' slams against President Bush. The real key here are the principles behind his foreign policy, principles which many Democrats share.
