"National Security Democrats"

Googling for something else, I found this March 2005 Jeffrey Goldberg article that got me annoyed at Dick Holbrooke all over again:

At sixty-two, Biden has a cheerful vanity and an exuberant restlessness that make him seem far younger. Since the election, he has become a leader of a modest-sized faction—“the national-security Democrats,” in the words of Richard Holbrooke, an ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton—that includes the most hawkish members in the Democratic Party.

Because, obviously, those Democrats who thought it would be a bad idea to launch a years-long bloody, expensive, and futile military operation in Iraq don't care about national security. Those who were totally wrong may have gotten tons of people killed, but at least they're not dirty fucking hippies. That seems to be the general idea. Anyways this kind of thing is why I think we can do better than President Hillary Clinton:

“She is probably more assertive and willing to use force than her husband,” says Richard Holbrooke, the former envoy for Bill Clinton. “Hillary Clinton is a classic national-security Democrat. She is better at framing national-security issues for the current era than her husband was at a common point in his career.”

I mean, if those were just the words of some guy you could discount them, but he's one of her top people.

Comments

That all makes sense. I'd add that the consistency of Obama's views on national security should give him an electoral advantage the other major Democrats don't have. He can't be plausibly portrayed as weak or inconsistent.

Posted by southpaw | December 15, 2007 10:11 AM

Time to cut down on the caffeine, Matt. "Totally wrong" is not a reasonable way to describe the decision to bring Saddam Hussein's career to an end. It may very accurately describe the hysteria which in some blinkered circles causes today's Iraq to be seen as the worst human catastrophe since the Great Flood.

A little perspective is in order, and it's a hell of a lot more likely to come from the likes of Biden, Clinton, and Holbrooke than from hyperactive kids with total amnesia about anything to do with Iraq before about 2002.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 15, 2007 10:56 AM

If HRC and the NRC plan on portraying Obama as a drug-dealing pimp, it's going to be hard to turn around and paint him as soft on national security. I mean, don't all drug-dealing pimps pack heat? And isn't 'strong on national security' just a code word that means 'willing to kill others in the name of self defense'.

To be less snarky about it, whatever disadvantages an African-American male may have in terms of acceptance as a leader in our still racist society, being portrayed as 'weak' in this way isn't one of them.

Posted by lampwick | December 15, 2007 11:01 AM

c'mon matt . . . you earn your national security bonafides by always favoring war, and saying that you don't favor it, but you're forced to because of the circumstances . . .

I was at a thanksgiving dinner, and one of the family members expressed a concern that Obama might be too naive and that he could get dooped by the likes of Ahmenijhad or Chavez, b/c Obama had expressed a willingness to pursue a dialogue with those respective leaders. I thought to myself, well didn't Hillary get duped by W. in 2002???

The NIE and the decreasing American deaths are gonna hurt all those pro-fear candidates (Guiliani, Hillary) and help those who actually have a positive outlook on America (huckabee, Obama).

Posted by natty light | December 15, 2007 11:05 AM

southpaw--

A little naive, are we? Should he win the nomination, in the general election Obama WILL be portrayed as being weak and inconsistent. He is a Democrat, he is a liberal, and in the consciousness of the chattering classes, that equates to weakness and being against national security.

Of course, were he a Republican with the same exact track record, he'd be considered a maverick who possesses an independent streak and steely resolve.
.

Posted by castanea | December 15, 2007 11:27 AM

War mongering is, of course a natural consequence of American exceptionalism, manifest destiny, we are number one, all that crap. Warmongering will go away when that crap goes away.

But nobody, not Paul, not Kucinich will say it: the US is just a country, one of many, not special, not better or worse than any other nation. It's so obvious and yet very difficult to accept for some reason.

Posted by abb1 | December 15, 2007 11:31 AM

"Totally wrong" is not a reasonable way to describe the decision to bring Saddam Hussein's career to an end.

it wasn't the decision to do it, but the decision HOW and WHY to do it that was totally wrong.

Totally, totally, completely, irrefutably wrong; as was the actual execution of that decisions.

Morally wrong. Legally wrong. Politically wrong. Historically wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Totally.

Posted by dirk gently | December 15, 2007 11:32 AM

"Totally wrong" is not a reasonable way to describe the decision to bring Saddam Hussein's career to an end.

The loss of the baby is a tragedy, but let's remember the danger the bathwater posed.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | December 15, 2007 11:37 AM

Holbrooke - another wicked, odious, stupid, and wrongheaded Podhoretz-lite. These are the scrofula who cry "anti-Semite!" if you have reservations about nuking Iran. If indeed Hillary '08 turns out to be the Potemkin Village Peggy Noonan speculated it was - it'll be a good day in America.

Posted by Trevor | December 15, 2007 11:41 AM

"the hysteria which in some blinkered circles causes today's Iraq to be seen as the worst human catastrophe since the Great Flood"

Well, it's not the worst since the great flood, there having been the Holocaust and such, but it's pretty severe. Roughly one million dead on top of whoever would have died due to the already-murderous combination of Saddam and sanctions, four million refugees, the division of the country by brutal sectarian cleansing into neighborhoods walled off by concrete. In fact, I'd say that to dismiss concern about these things as "hysteria" is, actually, vile and inhuman.

Posted by Kalkin | December 15, 2007 11:44 AM

To say whether or not one should "use force" begs the questions of:

1. What sort of force?
2. Against whom?, and
3. For what?

   For example, while the United States has ignored the obvious need for energy independence, it has spent a trillion dollars on its Iraq venture. Meanwhile, Russia and China are developing cyberwar capabilities. Its all as if the United States had spent its efforts on a battleship buildup on the eve of WWII, when the aircraft carrier emerged.

   Also absent from these discussions is any consideration of how the United States is going to pay for any security when it has deficits and the housing crisis or how it is going to be able to produce a great military when it has outsourced its manufacturing base.

   
   

Posted by Duncan Kinder | December 15, 2007 11:46 AM

Robert Powell (above) describes a decision that has involved the killing of 1 million civilians, the slow motion dismemberment of a nation-state, and the poisoning of the political landscape in the Middle East as "the decision to bring Saddam Hussein's career to an end."

Does he work for the Ministry of Truth or the Ministry of Peace? Help me out here.

Posted by Michael Connolly | December 15, 2007 11:56 AM

Does he work for the Ministry of Truth or the Ministry of Peace? Help me out here.

It's the Ministry of Not Understanding That the Same Arguments Regarding the Danger of Saddam Now Apply to the Danger of George W. Bush.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | December 15, 2007 12:02 PM

Col. Lang has a different take, Matt.

He thinks Obama is the "interventionist" in sheep's clothing.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/12/would-obama-hav.html

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/10/clintons-foreig.html

Posted by Jet Lagged | December 15, 2007 12:04 PM

Please, please let this not be another comment section completely occupied by long Hitchensish rants by Robert Powell on how gloriously noble and yet defiantly just the invasion and occupation of Saddam Hussein, I mean, Iraq was, is, and ever shall be.

Posted by El Cid | December 15, 2007 12:05 PM

Robert Powell waxes tumid again:

A little perspective is in order, and it's a hell of a lot more likely to come from the likes of Biden, Clinton, and Holbrooke than from hyperactive kids with total amnesia about anything to do with Iraq before about 2002.

Oh, sure. If only you were remotely capable of demonstrating that perspective yourself. The antidote to "total amnesia" isn't selective amnesia. Douchebag.

Posted by Bill | December 15, 2007 12:30 PM

A little naive, are we? Should he win the nomination, in the general election Obama WILL be portrayed as being weak and inconsistent. He is a Democrat, he is a liberal, and in the consciousness of the chattering classes, that equates to weakness and being against national security.

Let 'em try to say it with a straight face.

Let the chattering classes say that a man who vocally opposed the Iraq war at the height of the drumbeat for it is weak. They should point out which part of his analysis was incorrect, or is inconsistent with his present view. And they should explain how any of it equates with weakness.

They can try it, of course, but my guess is that they'll find the dogs won't like that brand of dogfood and they'll have to profess another position.

Posted by southpaw | December 15, 2007 12:57 PM

Hi Matthew,
Have been a long time follower, this is a first post. Sorry for the length -but it's election crunch time.
First, I wanted to mention the recent moves by Al Gore ending any 08' hope may have pushed many into Obama's campaign and now contribute to his quick rise. I'm one of them.
If you truly believed in Gore, Clinton is definitely OUT as an alternative, and Edwards..would make a great Attorney General. (The bulk of Edwards supporters will also go to Obama -eventually)
Leaving Obama. I wouldn't have picked him before -maybe a VP to Gore yes, but Prez -no..
But Obama has morphed into a powerful reincarnated King/Kennedy charismatic and cadenced leader. His calmness of thought in the face of Wolf Blitzers blitzkreig on him over the drivers license question -on national tv, was a defining moment for me. This guy really thinks and speaks from his heart and soul.
We can't ask for two better qualification for a Commander in Chief to have.
But I offer two crucial points to put the kabash on Lang's version of where Obama stands, why he IS the one, why Clinton SHOULD NOT be the one, and on Jet Lagged's 'Col Lang' himself..
1. Where Clinton is and has been a queen of the fence sitting & pandering DLC -whom I fondly call 'The WTF Gang', Obama, upon finding out someone put his name on their list issued a sharp rebuke to the DLC, saying he "has never been and will never be part of the DLC", and ordered his name removed.
2. The very base of the Democratic party opposed to Clinton, are avid anti-colonialists.. so for Lang to stupidly think a base approved Democrat -of African American descent, having lived in Africa, would for one second ever be for occupation indicates someone more of the mindset of a Liebernmna or a Bush -or a Clinton.'
Further, a Lang commenter refers to some past piece of a Concert of the Middle East. http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/12/a_concet_of_the.html Here's Lang's view of the world in a nutshell -literally and figuratively: The US and Israel rule everything and everyone. Well that's pretty much the Clinton/Lieberman position already.
Here's the defining moment for me nixing her to come anywhere near the Whitehouse:
Last summer Senator Diane Feinstein offered legislation to place a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs -only in civilian areas. This was, in part, as a result of Israel dumping 400,000 cluster bomblets over Lebanon last summer. The world was outraged and so was the Red Cross, all of whom supported the legislation.
Hillary Clinton, this poor picked on female, this mother and wife, joined with all of the Republicans and a few Democrats -including Lieberman, to vote against her own colleague and the legislation failed.

Obama voted with Senator Feinstein, and against Hillary Clinton.

Posted by hazmaq | December 15, 2007 1:46 PM

Time to cut down on the caffeine, Matt. "Totally wrong" is not a reasonable way to describe the decision to bring Saddam Hussein's career to an end.

I see a couple of people have already jumped on this one. So let me bring up this:

Which "career" are you talking about?

Are you talking about his career as a murderous dictator? Because that's not the career we were seeking to end. We enabled that career, sport. We supported and even rewarded that career.

The "career" we were troubled by was the one where he played with Iraq's oil supply, alternately and (in the eyes of some) capriciously withholding all of it one day, and oversaturating the market with it the next. That was the real threat that Saddam posed.

Look at the carnage and bloodshed that this "administration" shrugs off on a daily basis in Iraq. Hell, they shrug off the deaths and maimings of their own soldiers. We're torturing the people we claimed would greet us as liberators.

Now tell me this "administration" give a rat's ass about any of the mass graves that Saddam filled.

Posted by Roddy McCorley | December 15, 2007 1:52 PM

I knew I was going to be disappointed in the Democrats once they retook "power" on Capitol Hill, but ... I've traded in "disappointed" as it's not nearly strong enough. What am I supposed to think of the Leadership displayed by Hilary and Obama in the Senate? At least Dodd is doing Something. He could be doing a lot More but Something is Something. It's hard to get enthused about the presidential election, you see. Once we have a Demo prez and larger Demo majorities in the House and Senate ... then we'll be happy? Maybe then I can upgrade to Disappointed. Here's hopin'.

Posted by Glenn I | December 15, 2007 2:18 PM

The "career" we were troubled by was the one where he played with Iraq's oil supply...

No, just being too independent. Not "our" SOB.

Posted by abb1 | December 15, 2007 2:24 PM

I had and have the same sort of reaction to Holbrooke's implicit dismissal of the direct connection to the undergirding humanitarian principles of our Constitution from which any "uniqueness" our country can claim draws its birthright. And I recognize the same sort of "every day, ordinary" arrogant might-makes-right attitude in a message from a group of Democratic Senators that was delivered yesterday when they knowingly, willingly and purposely stood with Harry Reid to dishonor and ignore the principled hold placed by Senator Dodd, their senior Democratic colleague, on the Senate Intelligence Committee's FISA Amendments Act. May all of their future holds suffer the same fate.

Those Democratic Senators now ready and willing, if not eager, to sell out our Constitution, and thereby our inalienable right to privacy and the primary source of any American claim to be "manifestly exceptional," are:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2248, FISA.
Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Ken Salazar, Daniel K. Inouye, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Frank R. Lautenberg, Debbie Stabenow, Richard J. Durbin, Tom Carper, John Kerry, E. Benjamin Nelson, Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad, Carl Levin, Mark Pryor, Charles Schumer, Jay Rockefeller, S. Whitehouse, Bill Nelson.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S15646&position=all

Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Dick Durbin, John Kerry. All the rest I'd expect this from. But these four have no excuse. Durbin has already resisted granting Fourth Amendment-violating immunity to corporations, in the Judiciary Committee (as has, nominally, its chair, Leahy) and yet can't bring himself to resist his party leader in this deliberate procedural gimmick - done at the behest of Jay Rockefeller on behalf of Dick Cheney - to force immunity through the Senate, and thus into "law." I have no idea what Whitehouse thinks he's doing by sucking up to Reid and the Bad Boyz like Cheney and McConnell (not to mention the corrupt and foolish Ben Nelsons and Mark Pryors), instead of standing on principle with Chris Dodd and the American people. Patrick Leahy is shown once again to be all bark and no bite, and thus utterly untrustworthy on such critical matters. John Kerry is probably just clueless - but as usual, he's probably desperate to be "with it" in the Bad Boyz Clique at the White House and at Joe Klein's dinner parties, at any cost.

Note that this development makes clear that these 19 "Democratic" Senators will not be supporting Chris Dodd's resulting filibuster which is being forced into play by Reid's refusal (with their help) to honor Dodd's hold, and will thus happily vote for cloture (easily exceeding the necessary 60 votes, with the full-throated approval of Republicans) to cut Dodd off at the knees - both on the motion to proceed to the Intelligence Committee bill, and no doubt on a subsequent cloture motion to end debate on the bill to proceed to final passage, as well.

The vote on cloture to overrride Dodd's objection to the motion to proceed to the Senate Intelligence Committee bill will take place on Monday at noon. There will be a total of two hours of debate before the vote, on Monday morning. Dodd will control 35 minutes and Feingold 15 minutes of the hour assigned to those in opposition. Dodd is apparently not prepared to shut the Senate down by holding the floor with a few colleagues until the week, and session runs out - he okayed the UC agreement that set this up, and will allow that vote to proceed, pending unexpected developments.

Thus, barring Chris Dodd's willingness and ability (with relay help from a handful of committed colleagues) to hold the floor in the Senate (blocking all other end-of-session action) without interruption from midday Monday through next Friday and beyond if necessary), on Monday, December 17th, 2007, shortly after noon, the corporations who knowingly violated FISA and the Fourth Amendment for five years will receive their "You Are Above The Law" blessing for spying on us and "Free From Lawsuits and Judicial Branch Oversight" ID cards they've been bribing and lobbying for, from the United States Senate. It will take a few more days or weeks to become "official" via a presidential signature - but Monday's is the vote that matters, and that is the vote that will seal the deal.

Posted by pow wow | December 15, 2007 3:19 PM

I have no idea what Whitehouse thinks he's doing by sucking up to Reid and the Bad Boyz like Cheney and McConnell

Coroprate contributions and positive media coverage...Its no coincidence that the Democratic "leadership" caves to Republican demands and takes donations from the same corporate sponsors.

Posted by independent | December 15, 2007 3:57 PM

“She is probably more assertive and willing to use force than her husband,” says Richard Holbrooke, the former envoy for Bill Clinton. “Hillary Clinton is a classic national-security Democrat. She is better at framing national-security issues for the current era than her husband was at a common point in his career.”

As a Clinton crony, what could Holbrooke say; these people are straight out of the movie NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD? The female is deadlier than the male? If you want security get a night-light? But during this election, Hillary's national-security credentials are on the table. You decide: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | December 15, 2007 3:59 PM

Well, pow wow introduced a rather horrific element into this thread, so any comment on it will have to wait.

As for HRC, whatever her faults--and they are many--she is not a neocon and, I hope, never will be. I also hope that she'll never be president, with or without Holbrooke, who is likewise definitely non-Podhoretzian. (Full disclosure: my own preferences are, in order, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden.)

Posted by Henderstock | December 15, 2007 4:04 PM

It may very accurately describe the hysteria which in some blinkered circles causes today's Iraq to be seen as the worst human catastrophe since the Great Flood.

"Great Flood"? Seriously? Well, at least we know where you're coming from.

Posted by Ted | December 15, 2007 4:23 PM

Richard Holbrooke. Yeah, he's pretty awful. But what about Hillary having Michael O'Hanlon as her foreign policy advisor? EVEN WORSE. Just last month, the guy wrote an op-ed with Fred Kagan (Mr. Surge(tm)) saying that we should send troops to Pakistan to keep it "stable."

How many countries do we need to occupy to satisfy these people? What fucking game are they playing?

Posted by Dumbo | December 15, 2007 6:02 PM

Yes, some Democrats must retain grounding in rational national security issues for the party to have any legitimate prospects going forward.

No, deciding to remove Saddam Hussein from control of an oil-fueled aggressive, genocidal, regional superpower was not a mistake.

Who is able to function outside the conventional wisdom has a huge advantage in the coming election.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 15, 2007 6:32 PM

"[D]eciding to remove Saddam Hussein from control of an oil-fueled aggressive, genocidal, regional superpower was not a mistake."

Ah, that's where you fall off the log, my friend. Removing Hussein from power with no apparent plan on what to do afterward, aside from promoting chaos, was a fool's errand.

And--this is no minor point, so pay attention--the coming election will be all about conventional wisdom.

Unfortunately.

Posted by castanea | December 15, 2007 7:05 PM

"I was at a thanksgiving dinner, and one of the family members expressed a concern that Obama might be too naive and that he could get dooped by the likes of Ahmenijhad or Chavez, b/c Obama had expressed a willingness to pursue a dialogue with those respective leaders. I thought to myself, well didn't Hillary get duped by W. in 2002???"

The best part of all is that A-jad doesn't even really hold any real power in Iran's foreign policy circles beyond making speeches at the UN and Chavez is a bit of a paper tiger. How could either of these guys really hurt us? Who do you think could do better in negotiations, the guy who graduated from the top of his class at Harvard Law or the guy who thinks the Holocaust didn't take place (A-jad) or the guy who rambles on about tales about old men and horses or whatever (Chavez. If you understand Spanish and watch his speeches, you'll realize that the guy is just babbling most of the time about random shit. My native-speaking friends, both left and right, have confirmed this). Guys like this are just little punks that lead relatively weak countries that we could easily engage and counteract with a smart foreign policy team. The US media likes to act like they're going to take over the world, but they probably couldn't get their militaries to shoot straight. Now, if people want to worry about how a potential president would go up against Putin or Hu Jintao, who actually do lead countries that are first-tier global powers and have kicked Bush's ass in diplomacy on a few occasions, that would be a better question. However, aside from McCain, just about none of the Republicans would be able to handle this (Rudy seems to think we can decide whether or not Russia and China can have power, which is frankly retarded). The strongest part of a Clinton foreign policy team would probably be great power politics, but I doubt she could engage foreign civil societies competently. Edwards could probably do better on the latter but would probably be weaker on the former. Obama I could see doing well on both.

Posted by Reality Man | December 15, 2007 9:50 PM

Colonel Lang has it right on Obama (he is an interventionist who will screw up Iran), and wrong on Hillary (she's an interventionist who will screw up Iran.)

Reality Man is correct about Putin - he could run rings around just about any candidate the US can put up. Probably the smartest politician on the planet right now. Of course, the oil influx helped. But he cracked down on the oligarchs - and THAT is why the US hates him - because OUR oligarchs are still running the show here - and they do business with the ones he kicked out to London and Israel.

As for Powell, he's a joke. Ignore him. He's living in a fantasy land where Saddam was going to be the ruler of a unified, nuclear-equipped Middle East. A concept only a total idiot would believe.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 16, 2007 3:13 AM

castanea--
actually, there WAS a plan--the "Future of Iraq" project built up over a decade by the State Dept. and CentCom. Unfortunately this plan was ignored by the Administration, which decided to turn things over to a bunch of FEMA-like College Republican hacks. That this was a tragic mistake, along with the facts that there were no wmd stockpiles and that we had an insufficient number of troops working on inappropriate tasks in Iraq, was widely known in time for the 2004 election. That election was the referendum on the invasion, and the results demonstrated once again that there are virtually no circumstances under which Democrats can win with a liberal nominee.

I think David Brooks is right in his recent NYT piece--2008 is going to be a "post-war" election. Iraq is falling fast as an item of major concern, and only those severely impaired by nutty ideology think we're now heading towards a confrontation with Iran. Voters are much more likely to focus on domestic concerns. If the Dems can avoid nominating a liberal, they should be able to win.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 16, 2007 4:37 AM

I don't share the reflexive loathing for Holbrooke: he was instrumental in the Dayton Accord re Serbia in ?95 and the use of armed force to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

Remember Scerbernica? Kosovo? All that stuff that happened in the 90's...after Rawanda.

Rewanda was when Clinton realized that he had made a terrible error in failing to project US power.

Holbrooke has always been a proponent of rational use of power to achieve foriegn policy goals. I emphasize the word "rational".

If the Iraq catastrophe becomes the basis for a fixed idea on the progressive left that the US should never send a soldier overseas, the net result will be that, eventually, the Democratic party will rightly be seen as unreliable on foriegn affairs -- because a blanket ideological position like this is stupid.

It's the same reflex that prompted John Kerry, and many other Dems, to oppose Bush41's effort to stop Saddam Hussein's incursion into Kuwait - which easily could have kept going into Saudi Arabia.

Yes, Bush 41 coddled Sadaam before 1990 and sent mixed signals that may have facilitated the invasion of Kuwait. But failure to respond to that invasion would have been catastrophic: Sadaam at that time REALLY did have WMD, and threatened to seize the world's oil supplies.

If the Democratic party is going to be worthy of leadership - which in these post-Mukasey-confirmation days is not so clear --
it will have to demonstrate a capacity to produce leaders who can actually engage in statecraft. And statecraft sometimes includes the threat of war.

Not the blundering, ideology-intoxicated, ill-planned rush to war of Bush43.

Remember, Slobodon Milosevec ended the slaughter in Bosnia AFTER a few cruise missles hit near his home.

If statecraft is practiced effectively, those wars usually don't happen. We need rational, experienced leadership in this dangerous world.

Posted by Alex Lerman | December 16, 2007 6:08 AM

The one time in my lifetime that the Democrats actually had a liberal candidate -- Jimmy Carter -- they won the election. Ever since then, Democrat presidential nominees have been so afraid of being tarred with the L-word that they've disavowed it.

Posted by The Lone Banana | December 16, 2007 5:40 PM

Alex Lerman is exactly right, but The Lone Banana must have forgotten that Jimmy Carter was by any reasonable definition a Moderate, from Georgia no less, while Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry were unmistakably from both the North, and the left wing of the party.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 17, 2007 2:02 AM