On The Speech, Seriously

Okay. The speech is very impressive on several of the more technical aspects of military policy -- stuff about the budget, the larger context of the national security budget, civil-military relations, that kind of thing. It's also genuinely great to see a high-profile politician taking on the "war on terror" concept. That section of the speech even got my hopes up that as he outlined an alternative strategy he might really truly win me over by mentioning a phrase like "political grievances" but instead he kind of lost me with a segue into "new efforts to lead the fight against global poverty." On the other hand, fighting global poverty is a good thing, and Edwards' has gone farther down the right path on this subject than anyone else.

Problems!

Edwards seems to me to have on display here a tendency to say something very smart and then to some extent take it back. After a strident call for withdrawal from Iraq, he said that, well, he actually might keep some troops in Iraq. After a great attack ("some politicians have fallen right in line behind President Bush's recent proposal to add 92,000 troops between now and 2012, with little rationale given for exactly why we need this many troops") on his rivals, Edwards winds up punting a little while later -- "we might need a substantial increase of troops . . . proposals are worth close examination . . . need to avoid throwing numbers around . . . I will carefully assess the post-Iraq threat environment . . . determine the exact number of troops we need."

The idea for a "'Marshall Corps' modeled on the military Reserves, of up to 10,000 expert professionals who will help stabillize weak societies, and who will work on humanitarian missions" seemed under-explained. The real worry for me, though, is on the nuclear proliferation front. Edwards didn't really address this topic squarely at all. He did say we need better intelligence, and he said military force should be used "to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons" and it was a bit unclear to me what that means for, say, Iran.

All-in-all, I'm not in love, but I was impressed. Obama was much better on proliferation, but Edwards is doing a great job of pushing the envelop on topics like the need to get fence-sitters on our side, the need to move beyond "war on terror" rhetoric, etc.

Comments

Yeah, but how was his hair?

Posted by Ben | May 23, 2007 1:50 PM

On a non-hairstyle topic, I think retiring the phrase "the war on terror" is pretty terrible politics, with little actual policy benefit.

It would be greatly useful for the government to retool its approach the "war on terror" (for lack of a better phrase, which is half my point), and think of better ways to actually kill and arrest terrorists. However, running a campaign to end the use of the term "war on terror" opens Edwards up to all kinds of ridiculous attacks that he wants to surrender to the terrorists, etc. etc.

"War on terror" has entered into our national conciousness, like it or not. Simply declaring that the phrase is bad is too close (in the eyes of the public at least) to declaring that it's bad to kill terrorists. It would be much better for Edwards to talk about the actual policy changes he would make to shift the government beyond the current strategies of the "war on terror." You really can't call it anything else, though--certainly not while campaigning to be president.

Posted by Ben | May 23, 2007 2:01 PM

Yeah, but how was his hair?

Fantastic. I wonder how much he pays?

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 23, 2007 2:04 PM

"War on terror" has entered into our national conciousness, like it or not."

Yup. And making the point that you reject the phrase is the clearest way to demonstrate to the electorate that you intend to take American foreign policy in a dramatically different direction than that of the Bush administration.

Remember, much like with health care, if you run on something and win, it gives you power to effect change. If you run on nothing and win, not so much.

Posted by Petey | May 23, 2007 2:22 PM

Did he say anything about the appropriation?

Posted by Marshall | May 23, 2007 2:41 PM

Yup. And making the point that you reject the phrase is the clearest way to demonstrate to the electorate that you intend to take American foreign policy in a dramatically different direction than that of the Bush administration.

Having skimmed through the speech, Edwards sounds better than I thought he would in discussing the "war on terror" problem. Attacking it in blunt terms, as he did, is probably the best approach for the path he's chosen here. I still think he's attacking a symptom, not the disease, but I liked what I read, for the most part.

Still, reading a line like this:

The question is, what should replace the war on terror?

makes me think he hasn't entirely thought through the politics of this approach.

Posted by Ben | May 23, 2007 2:54 PM

"Attacking it in blunt terms, as he did, is probably the best approach for the path he's chosen here. I still think he's attacking a symptom, not the disease, but I liked what I read, for the most part."

To sorta repeat myself...

He's attacking the entire philosophical paradigm of the Bush post-9/11 foreign policy when he attacks the symptom of the GWoT phrasing.

Win an election running by standing firm on a philosophical shift, and you move the entire American mindset on foreign policy.

Posted by Petey | May 23, 2007 3:01 PM

Well, to sort of repeat myself, I did like what he said, I just dread that moment in August 2008 when Mitt Romney says, "Now the other fella wants to replace the War on Terror. I say we should double it!"

I don't need to tell you who I think would win that election.

Posted by Ben | May 23, 2007 3:05 PM

Ben, ye of little faith, if Romney and Edwards had that exact debate today, I'm quite confident that EDWARDS WOULD WIN.

I know our country falls a few percentage points short of common sense in some election years, but a lot has happened since 2004. People all around the country appear to be sick of the war in Iraq and sick of leaders who substitute swagger for sense. Even my country cousins in Indiana are bitching about all the wingnut nonsense in our foreign policy.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 23, 2007 3:37 PM

I don't need to tell you who I think would win that election.

The psychology of 2008 will be very different from the psychology of 2004. The defining emotional experience associated with foreign policy won't be post-9/11 fury, but horror at watching our people die in Iraq. I don't imagine that "doubling it" will play as well as it would've before.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 23, 2007 3:38 PM

Overall a good speech, I thought. Edwards focused a lot of his energy on attacking the Bush Administration and explaining how he would overhaul the defense department. Not a lot of "high-faullutin" rhetoric.

It's an interesting contrast with the foreign policy speech Obama gave a month ago, which was much broader and covered signifcantly more ground. Personally, I thought Obama's was better (surprise). I mean, I am glad Edwards as president is going to launch a "tough review" of military waste and "re-establish a strong connection with military leadership." Obviously those are good things. But to echo previous comments, if you're going to spend so much time attacking Bush and the GWOT-framing, you ought to come up with a better replacement--a different, positive view of foreign policy. Vague "stablization" programs don't really cut it. I did like how Edawrds wanted foreign aid to become a cabinent-level post.

The strength of Obama's speech in my view was how he talked about how everyone in the world is connected, that we all rise and fall together, that America had a national security obligation engage the world in a positive way. That was the guiding rhetorical vision and strategic rationale behind almost all his proposed policies and; as a consequence, it was very coherent. Obama spends little time attacking Bush, prefering instead to simply present an alternative foreign policy.

On the other hand the bulk of Edwards' speech is basically "Bush is bad, I will do the opposite." Which is, again, obviously a good thing. But I thought it was significantly less illuminating in terms of what a President Edwards foreign policy would actually look like. Technocratic military reforms don't really factor into that, and when Edwards does talk about third-world stablization and global poverty he only talks about American moral obligation. Obama has the same goals but frames it by talking about shared security. I prefer the latter approach. Obama also talked a lot more about alliance building and the need to control WMD proliferation. Those should be far higher priorities than various beauacratic manuevers to cut military waste.

Overall though I thought it was a good speech. The democratic frontrunners all have essentially equivalent policy platforms, especially on a topic like foreign policy where there's a universal consensus. What people are looking for then are clues to which candidates are most commited to which specific policies, and which candidates are best able to execute those policies. That's certainly the area where all the disagreement is (along with the consideration of which candidate is the most electable).

And so I still don't particularly trust Edwards because he was a cheerleader of the Iraq war a couple years back. And I still think Obama has the best articulated foreign policy and the best foreign policy judgement of the three frontrunners. I would also have to say that there is no way Edwards, even if he gave a million speeches that would convince me otherwise. Obama, on the other hand, could definitely fuck up and blow it, in which case I would go with Clinton as the next most trustworthy on foreign policy.

Posted by Korha | May 23, 2007 3:46 PM

I think Petey, Neil, and LP are underestimating the continuing appeal of a "war on terror," at least on a rhetorical level.

Americans are indeed quite fed up with Bush's foreign policies. However, I think they're still wedded, perhaps even on a subconcious level, to a general war on terror, with Jack Bauer and his comrades subverting the terrorist menace at every turn.

In other words, they may be fed up with the specifics, but Americans still like the idea of elite squads of Americans pursuing terrorists to the far reaches of the globe. Turning one's back on that imagery and rhetoric will lead to political problems.

Posted by Ben | May 23, 2007 3:48 PM

oh my i cant spell

Posted by Korha | May 23, 2007 3:48 PM

"I don't need to tell you who I think would win that election."

I think Edwards could beat Jesus in a Presidential election.

I think Edwards could perform unnecessary medical experiments on dogs and cats on camera and still win a Presidential election.

If he loses a general election, everything I know about politics is wrong.

There are a lot of parallels between Edwards and Bobby Kennedy, but the salient one here is that RFK in '68 and JRE in '08 both realized that they had an unusually free hand to tell the truth and still win the WH.

I'm not sure whether or not I would recommend Obama or Clinton to challenge the GWoT formulation. But Edwards is doing it because he can.

Posted by Petey | May 23, 2007 3:53 PM

Hoho, don't get ahead of yourself Petey. Edwards still has to win the primary first. And so he's challenging the GWOT forumlation--because he has to. Hell, if Clinton was in third place she might be doing it too.

Posted by Korha | May 23, 2007 4:03 PM

"Hoho, don't get ahead of yourself Petey. Edwards still has to win the primary first."

That's the hard part. It's the general election that's easy.

"And so he's challenging the GWOT forumlation--because he has to. Hell, if Clinton was in third place she might be doing it too."

I have no doubt that the primary dynamics are shaping how Edwards chooses to run. But that doesn't matter. What does matter is that he's running as a proud progressive.

Winning the WH with a popular candidate running as a proud progressive would mark an epochal shift in American politics.

Posted by Petey | May 23, 2007 4:10 PM

Petey,

Has it ever occurred to you that you may be (how can I put this gently) a little too emotionally invested in your candidate?

Posted by Pithlord | May 23, 2007 4:21 PM

Ben: Yeah, but how was his hair?
MY: Fantastic. I wonder how much he pays?

I'm concerned with the amount he was paid for the speech. In fact, I'm keenly interested in every financial transaction John Edwards has ever made. Can I extend that interest to alternate universes? Because I want the media to track the other John Edwardses in their corresponding parallel timelines. If all the speaking fees from all the alternate universes could be spreadsheeted and plastered on page one, I'd feel our press was on the right track.

Because we all know, as day follows night, that that to be wealthy is at odds with one's concern for the poor. The only ideological consistent position is to be like Jesus and give it all away. Only then can one run for president.

Posted by sangfroid826 | May 23, 2007 4:26 PM

"Has it ever occurred to you that you may be (how can I put this gently) a little too emotionally invested in your candidate?"

Meh. The stakes are high. Passion is part of politics.

Posted by Petey | May 23, 2007 4:26 PM

would mark an epochal shift in American politics

You seriously believe that? I think it would mark a return to the type of center-left policies we got in the Clinton administration - which would still be a good thing.

Posted by blah | May 23, 2007 4:31 PM

"You seriously believe that?"

I seriously believe that.

The comparison I keep trying to make is that Edwards is the Democratic Reagan.

You run a charismatic candidate who stands proudly with your ideological base, and when they win, the mainstream politics of America move dramatically toward your ideological base.

Clinton ran as a center-left New Dem in '92, much as Bush the Younger ran as a center-right Compassionate Conservative in '00. Campaigns like those don't move the mainstream.

The Edwards candidacy has the opportunity to shift the center of gravity of American politics more than any candidacy since 1980. In the wake of an Edwards win, movement Progressivism would become legitimized in the way that movement Conservatism was legitimized by Reagan's victory.

Posted by Petey | May 23, 2007 4:39 PM

Petey: "I have no doubt that the primary dynamics are shaping how Edwards chooses to run. But that doesn't matter. What does matter is that he's running as a proud progressive."
-----------
ha ha ha hahhahahhaha

[wipes tears of laughter from eyes]

God! I love this blog.

So Edwards is running as a "proud progressive" A ..er.. PeePee.

Well, that certainly beats "Vote Por la Gran Puta Hillary, Por Favor "

My mind tells me that Richardson is the only one of the lot who could find his butt with a six man search party, but I could see voting for Edwards.
For some reason, my bullshit alarm doesn't go off with him the way it does with Obama and Hillary.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2007 5:11 PM

Except for the Iraq War vote, of course.

I still think Edwards looked at Billionaire Haim Saban's $15 Million donations, at the clear message from Haim's dogrobber Kenneth Pollack, and crumbled like a cookie.

Not exactly the Tribune Tiberius Gracchus , eh?
More like that little wussy Cicero.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2007 5:17 PM

Don Williams,
Didn't Ray-gun run for President in '76 and lose? So maybe Edwards learned his lesson the first time around. I'm willing to give him the chance to show that.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 23, 2007 5:53 PM

I don't agree with Petey on very much at all, but I think Edwards is frankly unbeatable in a general election. It's really not looking good for him to get the nomination, though.

Posted by Steve | May 23, 2007 6:03 PM

"The psychology of 2008 will be very different from the psychology of 2004."

I don't have a clue. One of the reasons that people like Kennedy & LBJ ran as and were hawkish during the Cold War is that unpredictable, uncontrollable, and vaguely frightening events were guaranteed to happen on a regular basis. Say like the fall of Cuba to Castro & Che in 1958.

So after the shock of 9/11, HRC is playing the safer route than Edwards, taking into account another domestic terror attack or the overrun of the Green Zone by the Mahdi or Bush nuking Tehran or some other unknown unknown. Edwards is gambling that the next two years are predictable or manageable. Edwards could indeed become completely unelectable, and get smashed by Romney in Aug '08 debate.

That said, well hell, I was going to say I am committed to Edwards in the primary, but if 10k Americans die next month, I will have to look at Clinton in order to keep the next generation of torturers out of the WH.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 23, 2007 6:03 PM

I will have to look at Clinton in order to keep the next generation of torturers out of the WH.

You know where extraordinary rendition started?

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 23, 2007 6:07 PM

You know where extraordinary rendition started?

Richard Clarke writes:

Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government. . . The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

Posted by Steve | May 23, 2007 6:23 PM

"You know where extraordinary rendition started?"

The President on '24' Monday night said sitting in that chair changes you instantly. In the vast majority of cases, for the worse. You think Rudy and George are scarey, for slightly different reasons, now. Dems have to win, and losing should be literally unacceptable. We have the House now, kinda, where the President is chosen. Ha-ha.

But, heck, 10k dead in Chicago next month would change the "psychology" and politics. I would hope beyond recognition, but more likely just more of the same ole horror of Empire.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 23, 2007 6:27 PM