The Informationist

Neoconservatism, Liberal Internationalism, and Informationism

Lots of good stuff on TPM Cafe’s America Abroad blog the past couple of days. First Jim Lindsay resumed his discussion about the best future course for our Iraq policy. I added my two cents:

The problem with “staying the course” is that it is the surest path to the dreaded “Vietnamization” of Iraq.

In retrospect, two sensible voices emerged during the Vietnam War. Early in the game, Barry Goldwater said: “If we’re going to do this, let’s do it right and fight to win.” Much later, George McGovern said: “We’re obviously not willing to fight to win, so we might as well pack up and go home.” Neither one earned the support of more than about a third of the American people, and I suspect that the number of people who supported both Goldwater ‘64 and McGovern ‘72 was vanishingly small. Instead, candidates favoring a manageable, limited war leading to a negotiated settlement short of victory and eventual peace with honor cruised to two landslides. End result? We didn’t win, we came home too late, the negotiated settlement failed, there was no peace, and we did not leave with honor.

Friedman’s “send more troops” advocacy (with which I agree, though we may differ on some specifics) follows the Goldwater edict: fight to win.

Steinberg and O’Hanlon’s “withdrawal” advocacy follows the McGovern edict: We’ve already blown it, so let’s go home. (Though in all fairness, they advocate an orderly withdrawal rather than simple abandonment of the venture).

Bush’s “the course” talks a good game about defending human rights in the face of tyranny, but refuses to allocate appropriate resources. We are fighting a limited war with limited rules of engagement and limited resources against an enemy seeking total victory at all costs.

With all due respect to Jim, were a Democratic leadership who took his advice and “stayed the course” would simply inherit the war. Remember--what was once “Johnson’s War” became “Nixon’s War.” As Johnson and Nixon (and Bush) demonstrated, supporting a limited war may win elections. It is disastrous, however, for both the U.S. and the people we claim to be helping.

No one bit, even though I said nice things about Barry Goldwater. Today, G. John Ikenberry resumed his discussion of the differences between Democratic and Republican brands of internationalism under the heading ”Bush vs. Truman at the UN.” I entered the fray once again, largely because I felt compelled to point out just how bankrupt an institution the UN really is:

I consider myself a Truman Democrat, and one of the reasons that I frequent blogs like this one is to remind myself that I’m not alone--because if I restricted my time to listening what our Democratic leadership is saying, I’d have to run screaming from the party.

The attitudes that you describe are well represented among the Democratic intelligentsia; I see them all the time in places like the New Republic and the DLC Blueprint. I also, however, see them in the pages of the Weekly Standard and Commentary. The prominent Democrats who come closest to espousing such ideas--Senators like Lieberman and Biden, and likely future cabinet officials like Holbrooke--do not have large followings within the party (see: 2004 primary returns). I agree that the Bush administration lacks the combination you espouse--but I wonder where you see more of it on our own side of the aisle.

Furthermore, I also consider myself a Truman Democrat because his general approach worked, as did many of his ideas--but certainly not all of them. The Marshall Plan, NATO, and the Bretton Woods organizations have all been enormous forces for good. The UN has not. Despite occasionally getting something right or performing well at a bureaucratic assignment somewhere, the UN is clearly a net negative in the world today.

I am at a loss how anyone who cares about peace, human rights, individual libeerty, or basic human dignity can support the UN. Despite the high hopes surrounding its founding, the UN has become a bastion of barbarism. It serves mostly to legitimate regimes arising through force rather than the consent of their governed, to consign minority groups to vagaries of the national majorities governing them, to promote antisemitism, and to alleviate the pressure that stable countries should feel to resettle refugees fortunate enough to escape the hellish realities that engulfed their homes. An organization that affords equal membership privileges to free and unfree governments is flawed by design, and beyond reform. We should be working to form new, better organizations, and to shift the few things that the UN does well to organizations capable of upholding the ideals of liberalism.

The best way to honor Truman’s memory and to serve his goals is to admit that his attempt at institutionalizing them failed miserably. It’s time to learn from that failure and to try again with something new.

This one got a reaction. Seems that the UN has its fans and its defenders. Who knew?

I also got a reply from Ikenberry, who said that he appreciated my responses and remained open to alternative institutions. Important blog lesson: at least some folks really do read the replies to their posts. I’m getting the feeling that this forum is a great place to float ideas soon to appear in my papers and books.

It kind of bugs me, though, to feel like I’m playing a heavy in this forum. Guys like Ikenberry, Steinberg, Daalder, and Lindsay are on the right page (for the most part). They understand both the important liberal internationalist parts of the Bush Doctrine and the operational incompetence that splits it from the Bush foreign policy. My key problem remains, though, that they refuse to reach across the aisle to work with the neocons who similarly get it. Of course, the neocons are hardly any better on that count.

The bottom line is that an important segment of our foreign policy thinkers get it right. We need to promote global liberalism in all of its forms, and we need to allocate the resources to do it correctly. Such a foreign policy is critical to the survival and health of the U.S.--as well as being morally compelled and good for everyone else. But such thinkers remain a minority within a foreign policy establishment long dominated by realists, protectionists, and isolationists. Those of us in this camp need all of the allies that we can find if we are going to orient American foreign policy appropriately. There is a critical need to reach across the aisle here--and there should be plenty of people waiting to reach back. Refusal to do so may doom our foreign policy--and hurt the long-term prospects not only of the U.S., but of the entire world.

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 06/17 at 10:11 AM in Foreign Affairs and the World beyond Our Borders