There's an awful lot of sound and fury on the web right now about Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman's recent statements on Iraq. On the one hand, we have hawkish, "Scoop Jackson" Democrats like The Bull Moose (Marshall Wittman), strongly defending Lieberman:
Unfortunately, there are not too many Scoop types in the Democratic Party these days. One is Joe Lieberman, and incredibly some on the loony left would like to run him out of the party. (More ominously, the Lieberman discussion on some left wing web sites quickly descends into anti-Semitism - the hosts of these sites may not be responsible for comments but imagine if this took place on conservative venues).You would think that a minority party would want to expand its ranks rather than expel those who express heterodoxal thoughts. Perhaps it is true that conservatives seek converts and liberals excommunicate heretics. If Scoop Jackson types are unwelcome in the party, the donkey may spend many more years in the roaming in the wilderness.
Wittmann adds that Lieberman, like Scoop Jackson, represents "a tradition that hardly exists in American politics - a domestic liberal who is tough on security."
On the other hand, many on the left wing of the Democratic party are practically in an apoplectic rage against Lieberman. Here are just a few adjectives I found in a few minutes over at DailyKos: "collaborators," "appeasement," "corporatist warmonger," and possibly the worst insult of all, "bipartisan."
Not that I've ever been a huge fan of Joe Lieberman, but all this heated rhetoric got me wondering: what did Lieberman actually say? Here are the key remarks, made by Lieberman this Tuesday, at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment's "Forum on Next Steps for Successful Strategy in Iraq" (bolding added for emphasis):
The most important debate going on currently here about the war in Iraq is between some people who are focused on withdrawal of our forces regardless of conditions on the ground and the rest of us who believe that our goal in Iraq is not to withdraw but to win, so we can leave with the mission accomplished.[...]
For my part, I agree with Dr. Krepinevich's observation that, ?The war (in Iraq), which arguably began as a ?war of choice? has become a ?war of necessity? we cannot afford to lose. The costs of victory in Iraq will be large for the U.S. But the costs of defeat would be disastrous for the U.S., Iraq, the Middle East, and most of the world.
...[the costs of defeat] include the collapse of the new Iraqi regime, civil war, regional war, a victory for Zarqawi and Al Qaeda, which will embolden them to attack both other Arab countries and our American homeland, the rollback of democracy in the region, and the painful realization that the lives of American soldiers who have died in Iraq were given in vain.
And the key paragraphs that have gotten Lieberman into so much trouble of late:
It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation?s peril.It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war.
It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism. To encourage that new American partnership, I propose that the President and the leadership of Congress establish a bipartisan Victory in Iraq Working Group, composed of members of both parties in Congress and high ranking national security officials of the Bush Administration. This group would meet regularly, I would hope at least weekly, to discuss conditions and progress on the ground in Iraq and ways to alter or improve our strategy for victory. It would carry forward the cooperative spirit of the Warner-Levin amendment which recently passed the Senate. In our form of government, it would be one of the closest structures we could create to replicate a unity government or a war cabinet that exists in other democratic systems.
To sum up, Lieberman believes we need to win the war in Iraq, and that to do so will require resolve, bipartisanship, "working together," and national unity. He specifically calls for something akin to a "war cabinet" on Iraq, and adds that "politics must stop at the water?s edge." In other words, Lieberman harkens back to a different time, a different era, and a different set of circumstances - namely, post-WWII/early Cold War U.S. foreign policy. At that time, there was a broad consensus on containing the Soviet Union and on engaging with the world. Today, that kind of unity is very hard, if not impossilbe, to find.
Still, I believe that what Lieberman is arguing for is laudable in its own way - national unity while we're at war. However, I also believe that it's almost completely unrealistic at this point given all the (dirty) water that has flowed under the (rickety) bridge vis-a-vis (the debacle known as) Iraq. Also, it's close to impossible given the arrogance, stupidity and incompetence shown by the Bush Administration on Iraq and the entire "war on terror." Not to mention the way we were falsely led into that war by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz, all the bad blood, the denigration of war opponents (or anyone who has questioned the Bush strategy -- if it IS a strategy! - in Iraq) as "traitors," etc.
Having said all that, in my view the entire debate on Iraq has largely degenerated into unproductive name calling, ad hominem attacks ( Republicans against Howard Dean, liberal/Dkos Democrats against Joe Lieberman, DLC Democrats against liberal/DKos Democrats), etc. And that's not good for anyone, least of all America.
So, how do we get out of this mess? If I knew, I'd be a lot smarter than I am now. However, just a few points and then I'll sign off:
1) In hindsight, we probably should never have gotten into Iraq, certainly not when we did and in the way we did it, but...
2) Now that we're there, we need a serious "success strategy" and "exit strategy" because...
3) If we don't, the whole thing could turn into an utter catastrophe, even worse than it is now (hard to believe, I know). And finally....
4) The Democrats have GOT to resist the urge to tear themselves apart on this, as they did in 1968 and 1972 over Vietnam. If we do that, we risk letting the right-wing Republicans off the hook for their domestic disasters, and also allow them to continue screwing things up (the environment, the budget, Social Security, disaster preparedness and response, civil liberties, the right to choose, etc.) for years to come.
As far as Joe Lieberman is concerned, it sounds like he may be the next Secretary of Defense. Or not. But the bottom line is that Lieberman is a "Scoop Jackson" Democrat, a strong Progressive on many domestic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. Now, we all certainly don't have to agree with him, but in my opinion Lieberman - and the DLC Democrats in general - definitely should not be drummed out of the party. They are important part of the Democratic Party. That is, if we want to have a "big tent" party and not let the Republicans keep winning elections ad infinitum. Personally, I vote for the "big tent" and victory against the Republicans. We Democrats have a great deal more in common than our disagreements over Iraq would sometimes indicate, even if it doesn't seem that way at the moment...