Democratic War Strategy Incoherent Because..

Take your pick of reasons, everything from a disparate coaltion that includes more than a fair share of moderate Democrats who may not support the war in Iraq, but clearly don't want to lose, to a fairly large, Netroots driven liberal bloc that can't see the consequences of early withdrawal, only the electoral consequences for 2008 and beyond. But this Washington Post's Outlook Section item by Tony Smith notes anot reason for the troubles Democrats are having with an Iraq strategy, their gloabal outlook is not different enough from the President's to enable them to reconcile their hatred of Bush and their own foriegn policy stances.

The Democrats' victory last November obviously reflected popular sentiment against the war in Iraq, but nothing seems obvious now as Democrats try to exploit their new majority status in Congress.

Iraq had flustered the congressional Democrats because Democrats don't have an agreed position on what America's role in the world should be. They want to change the Bush administration's policy in Iraq without discussing the underlying ideas that produced it. And although they now cast themselves as alternatives to President Bush, the fact is that prevailing Democratic doctrine is not that different from the Bush-Cheney doctrine.

Many Democrats, including senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, embraced the idea of muscular foreign policy based on American global supremacy and the presumed right to intervene to promote democracy or to defend key U.S. interests long before 9/11, and they have not changed course since. Even those who have shifted against the war have avoided doctrinal questions.

But without a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine, with its confidence in America's military preeminence and the global appeal of "free market democracy," the Democrats' midterm victory may not be repeated in November 2008. Or, if the Democrats do win in 2008, they could remain staked to a vision of a Pax Americana strikingly reminiscent of Bush's.

Democratic adherents to what might be called the "neoliberal" position are well organized and well positioned. Their credo was enunciated just nine years ago by Madeleine Albright, then President Bill Clinton's secretary of state: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further into the future." She was speaking of Bosnia at the time, but her remark had much wider implications.

First, the November elections were not only about the war in Iraq, but also about Republican mismanagement writ large, including Iraq, but also spending, ethics, domestic policy and just general laziness.

Smith makes a good point, that the Democratic strategy for foriegn policy, when compared side by side with the Bush policies, don't differ that much. The problem then for most liberals is that they don't like Bush's management of the war, but fail to see that they probably like the end goals.

But then, right now, the Democrats are blinded by a reality that they cannot grasp and is probably not accurate, so entrenched in their viewpoint of having a mandate to end the way.