by ck
Josh Marshall posted part one of a long interview with Senator Biden. It covers a lot of territory, but there are two main themes:
One is the failure of the BushCo NeoCons to differentiate between Al Qaeda Gangsterism and State Sponsored Terrorism.
The other is the need for an American Foreign Policy based on Enlightened Nationalism — as Senator Biden calls it.
I’ve described it as Enlightened Self Interest — a term used by Walter Simon, a history professor of mine back in the 1960’s.
Before the invasion of Iraq, I tried to formulate some arguments about this, using the Clinton Doctrine of Robust Internationalism as a contrasting framework the Bush Doctrine of Arrogant Unilateralism. That both schools can invoke Wilsonianism as justification is evidence of the complexity of this issue, and the mixed legacy of Woodrow Wilson.
Excerpts from the interview:
I think you’d see a Kerry administration being willing to exercise force in the face of — if two conditions pertained — One, that the exercise of the force was likely to result in the outcome that we were seeking. The difference between exercising force in Kosovo and force in Somalia is that we did not have the physical wherewithal and the likely allies to be able to succeed in the exercise of that force. …
It’s not preemption. It is a new standard for when you basically forfeit your sovereignty as a nation-state [if] you’re engaged in genocide. So, every place with genocide should we intervene? No There has to be the practical capacity to do so. …
Second thing is, so there’s kind of a new standard that has emerged, that I think is the combination of what I refer to as this enlightened nationalism, that we operate in our national interests in every circumstance where we can under the umbrella of international rules and the international community. But where the damage and danger is irrefutable, we reserve the right to act in our own interest or in the interest of humanity, if we have the capacity. …
That is different than the standard and the rationale of our neoconservative friends. They argue that the exercise of force is important because we are at the apex of our power and that we are more enlightened than the rest of the world. And when we have the ability to exercise force it allows us to leverage our power in direct proportion to the moral disapprobation of the rest of the world. …
[What you will see emerging in the Kerry administration, is] an adherence, and a value, and a promotion of international institutions like our grandfathers did at the end of WWII so we wouldn’t carry the whole load of the whole world all the time, and the willingness to exercise force if need be to enforce the rules of the road when they’re violated. …
TPM: Can I ask you a question? It seems that one of the shortcomings of the neoconservative worldview is their focus on states. …
BIDEN: … The fundamental flaw [of the neoconservatives] is that they genuinely believe — and put it in the negative sense — they do not believe it is possible for a sophisticated international criminal network that will rain terror upon a country, that has the potential to kill 3,000 or more people in a country, can exist without the sponsorship of a nation-state.
They really truly believe — and this was the Axis of Evil speech — if you were able to decapitate the regimes in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, you would in fact dry up the tentacles of terror.
I think that is fundamentally flawed reasoning. If every one of those regimes became a liberal democracy tomorrow, does anybody think we wouldn’t have code orange again in the United States? Rhetorical question. Does anybody think we don’t have to worry about the next major event like Madrid occurring in Paris or in Washington or in Sao Paulo? Gimme a break. But they really believe this is the way to do it. …
But the way Cheney’d respond to that would be to say, ´Well, are you telling me there’s not more terror when these guys are running [the show]´
Yeah, there is. Do they aid and abet, do they have sort of a synergistic impact? But are they, if you eliminate them, the life blood that flows to these organizations? It is much more important for us to be able to go at their sources of funding. It’s more like organized crime. They love this thing about, you know, it’s not law enforcement. It’s not law enforcement in the sense that we have to have a warrant to go get them— that´s the implication. But it is basically gumshoe work.
It is intelligence; it is cutting off the source of their supply of money. It is infiltrating their organizations beyond bombing their training bases. That’s a good thing. They bomb their training camps — that´s a good thing. We did a good thing in getting rid of Saddam. That son-of-a-bitch was a butcher. But it had nothing to do with our central problem, terror.
And the reason why it’s so dangerous what they’re doing, their approach — it’s not intentional — but it takes their eye off the ball. It’s the wrong focus.
The question: do they have a synergistic impact? — is fundamental to the argument about the invasion of Iraq.
On this point, I part company with Senator Biden. The Middle East States that provided overt support “terrorists” — i.e., Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian groups — do not have a synergistic relationship with Al Qaeda. In fact, the states that supported Palestinian groups — Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, etc. — are hostile towards Al Qaeda, which targets the governments of these states.
Al Qaeda received covert support from individuals within Saudi Arabia, and from the Pakisatani ISI.
Not only did Saddam not threaten the USA, but his suppression of Islamic Radicals prevented Iraq from becoming an Al Qaeda breeding ground.
The Bush Administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq has made us less safe it three distinct ways:
1) It diverted resources from the hunt for Al Qaeda.
2) By removing Saddam, it turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground.
3) Bush’s arrogant unilateralism and hubris has destroyed America’s reputation in the world, and reversed the goodwill we enjoyed after 9/11.