The September issue of Foreign Affairs hits newsstands today, featuring a 5,700-word article with John Edwards' most detailed foreign policy vision to date, under the internationalist headline "Reengaging With the World."
Of all the prominent presidential candidates, Edwards has staked out the most comprehensive challenge to the Bush Doctrine of the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Top Republicans have promised to continue most of Bush's foreign policies -- or "double" them, as Mitt Romney pledged for Gitmo -- while leading Democrats have largely operated within Bush's framework. Democrats tend to criticize the Iraq war's execution while crediting GWOT for improving national security (Clinton); or to oppose the war while endorsing variations of preemption (Obama); or to call for multilateral diplomacy while supporting unilateral plans to partition Iraq along sectarian lines (Biden). Only Edwards completely rejected the failed GWOT framework, which has anchored U.S. policy for six years, and fully confronted the Bush administration's reckless exploitation of terrorism for domestic political aims -- an important critique that has been unthinkable for Obama and Clinton because of their bipartisan instincts. This record makes Edwards' new article more relevant than the typical campaign white paper, and though his provocative criticisms are enumerated in detail, some of the proposed alternatives are wanting.
Edwards advocates American power guided by "moral leadership," deployed in concert with a reengaged set of allies, and bolstered with new assistance for the developing world on par with the Marshall Plan. "We need to place 'smart power' at the center of our national security policy," he writes, picking up on Suzanne Nossel's essay in the same journal three years ago. To Edwards, smart power begins by weighing the externalities of hard power that the administration has ignored. Thus, even setting aside moral and constitutional concerns, Gitmo is a counterproductive exercise in hard power, Edwards concludes, because it created the "recruitment poster al Qaeda wanted." Endorsing the arguments of Richard Holbrooke and Anthony Zinni, Edwards laments that approaching the fight against today's terrorists and tomorrow's extremists in strictly hard power terms, as a global war, has actually minimized "the challenge we face by suggesting that the fight against Islamist extremism can be won on the battlefield alone."
Instead, a smart power approach means taking proactive action to "stabilize weak and failed states" before they become terrorist havens; spending more on development, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and "universal primary education" (with a sixfold budget boost for schools in "countries with a history of violent extremism"); creating a new cabinet-level position to direct global development policies; and, in a thorny but intriguing proposal, altering the typical force structure of our foreign operations by establishing a new, non-military corps of civilian reserves. These 10,000 "civilian experts" could deploy for humanitarian and reconstruction missions, which would otherwise be staffed by soldiers, potentially reducing both mission creep for the Defense Department and our military footprint in volatile areas.
The most significant shortcoming in Edwards' article is that he does not say precisely when he would use force as president. The emphasis on "smart power" is a welcome acknowledgment that the administration's crabbed vision of American power has made our country less safe, just as its myopic devaluation of traditional diplomacy has diminished our leverage in foreign affairs. But Edwards does not provide a metric, let alone a doctrine, for when to use military force. Instead, he issues a sweeping promise, more fit for a campaign ad than a policy journal:
As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to apply the full extent of our security apparatus to protect our vital interest, take measures to root out terrorist cells, and strike swiftly and forcefully against those who seek to harm us.
---
This post is adapted from a longer column for Democracy Arsenal. Ari Melber is a regular contributor to The Nation magazine.
Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber
He can win in the south, he is trying to bring both poverty and the shrinking middle class to the national debate, he is make some very sound foreign policy statements and surrounding himself with the right people, and he's charismatic.
I've been keeping my eyes on Edwards, Obama, and Bill Richardson, and while all three seem like great choices, Edwards FEELS like the RIGHT choice.
When did the lives of American citizens fall to the bottom of the list of national priorities? All the Halliburton management have millions of dollars stuffed away for themselves because this nation's resources have been dedicated solely to waging wars against others. At the same time, everything for us, the people, has been ignored, and our lives continue to get worse.
Let's change the premise and the discussion. Let's ask first what these politicians will do to the "failed states" of Oakland, Detroit and New Orleans, ask what the commitment will be to provide better schools, good jobs, decent housing and safe neighborhoods, and health care for our own people.
Bring the troops home. Stop the wars.
I don't agree with every Democrat running for office but we are blessed to have a field of such high caliber. What do the Republicans have? Romney who makes Kerry look unwavering, Thompson who is booooooooooring, Giuliani whose own family despises him (and with good reason). The only diamond among them is Ron Paul who is a long shot at best. Did I forget to mention McCain? McCain was running, when?
Bush picks his drinking buddies and investment partners. It explains a lot, doesn't it?
Of course, it SHOULD go without saying...but, alas...it does not...so, I hope that you will give us a heads up when Senator Biden writes with a preeminent authority about how the US will regain its credibility throughout the world and restore its global leadership role.
Clinton and Obama had a debate on using diplomacy with roque nations that Edwards was left out of. Edwards called the dispute unimportant.
A few weeks later, Edwards said he would negiotiate with Iran which may not be a bad idea. The problem is that Edwards has to take stands like that to get attention so you don't know if he really means it or not.
Let's simply elect someone who will help us regain our staus as the greatest nation on earth and not a rogue superpower.
- Focused On Locally-Targeted Efforts To Win Support In The Community While Identifying, Isolating And Eliminating Terrorist Elements.
- Highly Integrated And Able To Mobilize All Elements Of National Power, Including Humanitarian And Development Assistance And Rule Of Law Capacity Building.
- Closely Coordinated In Partnership With Local Governments.
- Intelligence Driven.
- Agile And Flexible In Its Operations.
- A Sustainable Effort In Contested Areas And Sanctuaries Of Jihadist Groups.
Mittromney.com
Edwards is borrowing heavily from Romney's playbook. First he nearly quotes Romney:
"Edwards is also careful to temper his progressivism with more centrist positions. Speaking to Rolling Stone, Edwards refused to rule out recommitting U.S. forces to Iraq to halt a genocide, and he even demonized single-payer health care: "Do you think the American people want the same people who responded to Hurricane Katrina to run their health-care system?" Rolling Stone Magazine, August 10, 2007.
"Amid a tour of southern New Hampshire, Romney contrasted the private-based universal health care system he created as governor in Massachusetts with government health expansions advocated by some Democrats, saying to laughter, "The last thing I want is the guys managing the Katrina cleanup managing my health care system."
Fox News, August 1, 2007
Edwards is,...is what? A leader, a visionary, a fake, a follower, a copycat...?
We thank you, Mitt boys, for your sacrifice.
It appears Edwards is no longer setting the Democratic agenda, but transforming the national debate.
mike