Edwards on Terrorism

There's a lot of promising notions here, though the meaty proposals are outlined with a fairly broad brush. I'll probably have more to say soon when I get a more in-depth understanding of what some of this is meant to mean. My favorite part, though, is really just the opening line: "There is no question that America is less safe today because of the president's 'War on Terror Doctrine.'"

Obviously, that's not a strategy, but by simultaneously rejecting the "war on terror" conceptual framework and the notion that Bush's policies have been successful, Edwards is signaling that he's open to running a foreign policy that's different from Bush's in broad, strategic terms. Hillary Clinton, by breaking the other way on both of those questions in the most recent debate, did the reverse. Edwards has still left it pretty unclear what that alternative vision will look like, but he's taken significant steps in the right direction.

UPDATE: Okay, I'd say my main doubt here is that the "Marshall Corps" Edwards is envisioning may not really be doable. Carlos Pascual tried to create a more modest (about 3,000) version of this kind of thing but it's not going so well. Edwards seem to place much more emphasis on this idea, though, so the odds of pulling it off increase.

Edwards approach to the force size / force structure question is really admirable. There's a dual temptation here to either take the "tough" path and call for a bigger Army or else play to the base by loudly denouncing those who are calling for one. Edwards is doing the sound thing and laying out some reasonable principles that should govern thinking about these issues and not prejudging exactly what number that will leave you with down the road.

Comments

I looked up that Pascual thing, and here's what I got:

Pascual sought to create a 3,000-person contingent of people drawn from state and local governments and the private sector. That group was to include police officers, civil engineers and economists. And there would be a fund to hire and deploy private contractors to help with reconstruction within weeks of a crisis instead of waiting months for a special budget request, which is what State is now being forced to do.

The problem was the price tag: $350 million for the first year, Pascual and his staff figured.

The White House budget office balked. Pascual's request was whittled down to $100 million.

Congressional appropriators were even more skeptical. Republicans questioned whether the initiative was a priority for the White House. Democrats expressed concern that the reserve corps might encourage the administration to invade another country.

The appropriators chopped so much that in the end the SCRS got just $7 million in 2005. The message from Congress was clear: If State wanted to fund the corps, it would have to find the money elsewhere in its budget.

So it looks like the problem was just organizational priorities. Put in a president who regards the Marshall Corps as important and wants to fund it, and there shouldn't be any problems.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 7, 2007 6:15 PM

Ack, that didn't italicize right. Anyway, everything but the first and last graf are from the WaPo article.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 7, 2007 6:18 PM

The Edwards plan sounds like exactly what we DON'T need. The last thing we need is to go interviening in "Weak and failing states" because they "create hotbeds for terrorism and create regional instability." Driving out terrorist groups that target the US in failed states is a good idea, and if we can improve the local situation in the process, all the better - trying to go into those areas and "stablize" them is a recipe for involving ourselves in a variety of intractable civil wars. They're called failed states for a reason, after all. The most telling thing about the plan is that the place that currently best fits the scenario Edwards wants these troops for is Iraq.

I also like how he's going to magically improve the quality of military recruits at the same time as he increases their number to reduce reliance on Guard and Reserve troops by throwing money at recruting.

Edwards' plan isn't batshit "Bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran" crazy, but that doesn't mean its actually a decent idea. Rejecting the "War on Terror" paradigm is pointless if you're going to repeat the same mistakes for different reasons.

Posted by MattXIV | June 7, 2007 6:48 PM

My favorite part, though, is really just the opening line: "There is no question that America is less safe today because of the president's 'War on Terror Doctrine.'"

Matt is right that this is the key idea. Good politics and good policy. The GOP candidates are practically begging to be exposed as the chowderheads they are on security/FP - they are trying to out-chowderhead each other. It's good politics because you have to attack them on their percieved strength, particularly when it's completely undeserved. It's good policy because it really really is undeserved: Bush/GOP *have* made us less safe. You have to attack them head-on, and Edwards gets, and has always gotten, that.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 7, 2007 6:53 PM

The most telling thing about the plan is that the place that currently best fits the scenario Edwards wants these troops for is Iraq.

It depends what he means by intervention, I guess.

For example, if we had a Wayback Machine and could go back to the time of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, what would we do differently in that country?

Posted by Renwick | June 7, 2007 11:39 PM

It would seem to me that rejecting the entire concept of the "War on Terror" as opposed to beefing about policies of the Bush administration with respect to terrorism Edwards is just kissing up to circle-jerking bloggers and their idiotic readership who are soooo politically sophisticated. They realize "Whoa! Not only is there more than one kind of Muslim, but there's more than one kind of extremist Muslim. Ergo, a harmless metaphorical description of a needed set of policies (although ideally not Bush's) is totally inappropriate. blah blah blah then some self-righteous whining about the MSM."
Seriously though, this is a great blog, especially since it was picked up by the Atlantic.

Posted by Trolly McTroll | June 8, 2007 6:52 AM

Incredibly incoherent, TMcT. 'WOT' is a 'harmless metaphorical description' of a 'needed set of policies'? What the hell does that mean? Glad you like this blog. Try reading it. Especially since it's changed and improved so much since being 'picked up' by the Atlantic.

I'll learn to 'beef', since that's good and effective and not 'whine' from now on, BTW. I totally see the difference.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 8, 2007 9:29 AM