Since I first heard that James H. Webb, Jr. was considering challenging George Allen next year, as a Democrat, I've had a chance to read a good deal of what he has written on defense and foreign policy issues in recent years. Admittedly, it's a bit counter-intuitive to think of someone who resigned his post as Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration due to differences over budget cuts running for elected office as a Democrat, but I think Webb could become a key voice on defense and foreign policy issues in the party, and bring in some much-needed new thinking.
Webb is a hard-nosed realist when it comes to foreign policy, and believes in a global strategy for defending our interests and national security that plays to our inherent strengths, rather than exacerbating our weaknesses. Some of his views, which I will outline briefly here, may cause some debate and controversy in the party, but I think such a debate is healthy, and he's someone who has a lot to contribute, as well as a lot of credibility on these issues. Democrats need to establish a better level of trust with the public on national security, and show that we can both project American power when necessary to protect ourselves and our vital interests and avoid costly strategic blunders (like the invasion of Iraq) which waste resources and sap our strength.
A Strong Resume
Webb has served in a number of positions in government dealing with national security, having started his career leading a platoon of Marines in Vietnam, after attending the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. Afterward, he earned a law degree at Georgetown Law School, and served as counsel to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. In the Reagan administration, he served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from 1984-87, and then as Secretary of the Navy. He?s written a half-dozen novels, one of which "Rules of Engagement" became a major movie, and also a non-fiction book on the history of the Scots-Irish community in the United States. If elected, he would also be one of a very few members of Congress who have actual experience living in the Middle East ? he was in Beirut in the early 1980s as a television journalist covering the Lebanese civil war.
Webb "Got It" on Iraq, and Early
Clearly, the issue which was the proximate cause for Webb's decision to go "off the reservation" vis-a-vis the Bush administration and the Republican Party was the rush to war in Iraq. Webb "got it" on Iraq, early on, and published an op-ed in the Washington Post titled "Heading for Trouble: Do We Really Want to Occupy Iraq for the Next 30 Years??" in early September 2002, just as the Bush administration began the campaign to sell the idea of invading Iraq to the American public.
He observed that:
Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. This reality was the genesis of a rift that goes back to the Gulf War itself, when neoconservatives were vocal in their calls for "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad." Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq's regime but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.
Webb also realized that an occupation of Iraq would sap our strength, to the detriment of other, more important, interests:
Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall. Indeed, if one gives the Chinese credit for having a long-term strategy -- and those who love to quote Sun Tzu might consider his nationality -- it lends credence to their insistent cultivation of the Muslim world. One should not take lightly the fact that China previously supported Libya, that Pakistan developed its nuclear capability with China's unrelenting assistance and that the Chinese sponsored a coup attempt in Indonesia in 1965. An "American war" with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.These concerns, and others like them, are the reasons that many with long experience in U.S. national security issues remain unconvinced by the arguments for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation's existence is clearly at stake. It is true that Saddam Hussein might try to assist international terrorist organizations in their desire to attack America. It is also true that if we invade and occupy Iraq without broad-based international support, others in the Muslim world might be encouraged to intensify the same sort of efforts. And it is crucial that our national leaders consider the impact of this proposed action on our long-term ability to deter aggression elsewhere.
In hindsight, this may seem obvious, but few prominent observers, of either political party, had the courage to point this out in the fall of 2002. (Brent Scowcroft being one notable exception.)
?A New Doctrine for New Wars?
Probably the best concise statement of Webb?s recent thinking on U.S. national security strategy is an op-ed he wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "A New Doctrine for New Wars," a couple of months after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
A couple of key passages:
"the grand strategy of the British in the decades leading up to World War I is a relevant precedent. Britain's diplomacy and strategy were based on a desire to maintain world-wide stability and to protect its commercial interests. Similarly, Britain was a dominant maritime power that made minimum use of its own ground forces. In Asia, it counterbalanced the maritime interests of other nations in part by developing an alliance with Japan. Despite an empire that required a military presence in hot spots that spanned the globe, at the start of World War I the British Army had only six active divisions. The U.S. has 13 today, including the Marine Corps, with a far wider spectrum of responsibilities than had the British a century ago".The key elements of a new doctrine seem obvious. We must retain our position as the dominant guarantor of world-wide stability through strategic and conventional forces that deter potentially aggressive nations. We must be willing to retaliate fiercely against nations that participate in or condone aggressive acts, as well as non-national purveyors of asymmetric warfare. But we should take great care when it comes to committing large numbers of ground forces to open-ended combat, and we should especially avoid using them as long-term occupation troops.
Again, that is an observation which may seem obvious in hindsight, given our experience in Iraq, but Webb was saying that in late 2001. The key point is a strategy of fighting smart, and avoiding occupation of large swaths of territory with hostile populations, which tends to tie down resources and sap our strength:
If we remain focused on the twin goals of deterring cross-border aggression and eliminating international terrorism we will prevail. If we move beyond these clear objectives, we risk running out of people, equipment, and the kind of clarity that maintains the national spirit.
Sea Power
The analogy to Britain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries cited above indicates that Webb is a strong advocate of sea power. While we need high quality land forces, we are, as Britain was, primarily a naval power. Webb also has been a strong advocate of maintaining our fleet of aircraft carriers, opposing those who had argued in the 1990s that the carrier navy was obsolete. Given the difficulties of securing bases in important regions such as the Middle East and Asia, this makes a lot of sense, in my opinion.
[Apart from issues of strategy, support for a strong navy implies support for a strong economy in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where Navy contractors are the major high-skill/high-wage employers.]
A "Scowcroft" of Our Own?
In setting out to write this post, I was reminded of a very cogent comment that Nikolas Gvosdev, the editor of The National Interest, made in response to a comment I had posted on his blog, on the subject of Democrats and national security:
The problem is that there has been no Democratic equivalent of Scowcroft, someone who opposed the military operation yet had impeccable national security credentials and whose opposition arose out of a real commitment to a sound foreign policy strategy. As I had once said on Steve Clemons? blog, the Democrats have been stuck between the (perceived) antiwar, antimilitary stance of Dean and the ?all but indistinguishable from Bush? stance of Lieberman.
I don't mean to imply that Scowcroft and Webb have completely overlapping views, but I think that encapsulates the key challenge for Democrats: how do you argue that Iraq was a strategic blunder, without being perceived as "antiwar" or "weak" in general. Even with the dissatisfaction felt by the majority of Americans with Bush?s policy in Iraq, Democrats still face the hurdle of demonstrating strength on national security an issue area where Republicans have traditionally held a big advantage.
For all of the reasons cited above, I think James Webb could play a key role if he decides to challenge George Allen for Senate in helping Democrats craft and articulate a better national security strategy and overcome the "weak on defense" meme with the American public.
Guest post by Greg Priddy, author of the blog RealistDem. Thanks Greg!
Where is Tidewater going to be when John Warner retires? For decades he's been the wise old hawk who has boosted the Navy, with the simultaneous effects of strengthening America's defenses and supporting Virginia's economy. John Warner is getting pretty old. This is probably his last term. Then what? We've had 5 years to watch George Allen. George Allen is no John Warner. He doesn't know squat about defense, he has no clue about the Navy and just hasn't been in Tidewater's corner. Allen isn't even interested in doing the job much longer, based on his talk about retiring in '08 to run for President. This is a guy who's going to keep the Navy in Virginia?
This is why Virginia needs James Webb. Webb can pick up where John Warner will leave off. He'll give us a stronger, larger, carrier-based Navy and he'll strengthen Virginia's role in building that Navy, creating jobs along the way. We *really* need James Webb in the Senate.
One Caveat to Good Article at Raising Kaine
There's a recommended read over at Raising Kaine. At RK, guest blogger Greg's article explores the recent history of James H. Webb, Jr., who's considering a run against George Allen. Though he'd be a formidable candidate, I don't have a formed opinion on Webb's candidacy yet. But a comment toward the end of the article invents a premise. The author asks, "How do you argue that Iraq was a strategic blunder without being perceived as "anti-war" or weak in general?" Answer: Reject the premise and by having the evidence, courage of your convictions, and the strength to stand strong in the face of attack. It's also important to be able to reflect and reassess (something neocons are incapable of). They can label it a liability of our side, but it is not.
Recently, over at truthout.org, William Rivers Pitt wrote a great column (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120805Y.shtml)on the GOP's talent for changing the premise. As Pitt describes, someone throws a strawman into the argument. For example, Dick Cheney claimed that "we were not in Iraq (at 9-11) and the "terrorists hit us anyway." But Iraqi's did not cause 9-11 (see 9-11 Commisssion Report.) This was known shortly after 9-11 and long before the war began. So Cheney inserted a false premise, which serves as a confound and a distraction. GOPHERS try to send the argument splintering in numerous different directions. In other words, lob lots of "incoming;" try to defend yourself. It's a well-worn tactic, which we must reject. Radical conservatives know that the minute they push hard on Democrats, we'll try to clone them into our image. And that's why they do it. But bullying aside, de facto, those with the courage to speak the truth are far from weak. They show a toughness neocons only dream of. After all, how hard is, really, it to be a mantra parrot or a robo-cop?
We Dems get so defensive that we allow the other side to redefine the argument time and again. Why? One need only run through a litany of current events to show how Bush's inability to reassess has limited real progress in this country. The RK column is a compelling one. I am impressed that Webb stood strong. And it's a far cry from the Clinton, Biden, Lieberman me-toos--as well as Virginia's "favorite" son. I also believe if a reasonably diligent person (with no staff) could determine that the Bush case for war was fraudulent, then how hard could it have been for Senators with staffs? They didn't all see what Bush "saw," but they likely should have known enough. And if not, why not?
Though I'd want to know much more about his other positions, Webb may well be the candidate. Certainly he has the primary requirement for a Senator, that he'll examine the extant evidence and tell the truth. IMO, to shirk the truth just because one has (even) higher office in mind is pretty unforgivable. Still, we all got in line behind Sen. Kerry despite his aging (though once strong) "spine." But, just for once it would be more-than-refreshing to find candidates who's integrity didn't take a holiday over the launching of the Iraq war. They all bought into the changing of the premise when they shouldn't have. It's not a sign of weakness, but a strength to stand with integrity when few else would. Let's do a better job of rejecting false or strawman premises, no matter whom we chose to represent us. And let's do a better job celebrating our recent heroes.
What can we do to encourage Mr. Webb to jump in?
He looks like precisely the kind of Democrat Virginians are likely to support against George "the empty suit" Allen.
--JC
It would be nice to have some smart people in congress.
-Alec
Greg Priddy
Dear Sir:
I am writing to encourage you to run for the United States Senate seat currently held by George Allen. I read the many posts regarding you and your career on Raising Kaine, and I am convinced that you possess the requisite combination of character, experience, and intellect to make an exceptional Senator.
I worked as a volunteer for Tim Kaine during his successful campaign for the governor's mansion. I worked over 250 hours in the course of that campaign, and I am happy to make a pledge of a similar number of hours to you if you will agree to represent Virginia. I know that many of my fellow Virginians and Democrats feel the same way. We know we are asking a tremendous favor of you, but we know that you have shown yourself time and time again as a leader who is willing to take on challenges.
I have copied below an article from my own blog regarding the "conventional wisdom" about Senator Allen's perceived invulnerability. I believe that Senator Allen is more vulnerable than he could ever possibly realize, and I look forward to seeing that same look of surprise and disappointment on his face that I saw on November 8, 2005, when he was forced to admit the defeat of his protégé Jerry Kilgore.
Thank you for considering our request,
Sincerely,
J.C. Wilmore
"The Washington Times is Whistling Past the Graveyard: How George Allen can be Defeated in 2006 (and Why He Should Be)"
The Washington Times has an article entitled “Allen Leads Potential Challengers in Senate Poll.†According to a Rasmussen telephone survey of 500 likely voters conducted Wednesday, Mr. Allen would receive at least 54 percent of the vote in a head-to-head contest against four potential Democratic opponents: Delegate J. Chapman Petersen of Fairfax, former Navy Secretary James Webb, former Rep. Leslie L. Byrne and actor Ben Affleck. The clear message to Democrats from the conservative Washington Times: don’t bother running in 2006.
But is the Washington Times whistling past the graveyard? Consider the poll itself: “500 likely voters;†hardly seems like a good sample to me considering that about 2 million voted in the gubernatorial election that brought Democrat Tim Kaine a crushing victory over Republican Jerry Kilgore. What else leaps out? No Democrat has actually declared his or her candidacy. Real candidates always have an advantage over hypothetical candidates. It’s also eleven months before the election. Another key time factor: it’s been more than five years since Virginians have had an informed discussion of Allen’s record, both as Senator and as Governor.
The biggest factor that the Rasmussen poll and the Washington Times failed to account for is the endorsement factor. The Virginia Democratic Party currently has several "rock star" Democrats: Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Doug Wilder, whose endorsements carry a lot of weight. Warner and Kaine are campaigning machines, and Wilder is no slouch himself. Perhaps Barack Obama could be persuaded to visit again, sort of a dress rehearsal for the Warner-Obama 2008 campaign.
The Republican Party of Virginia has, perhaps, two "rock star" politicians: John Warner and George Allen. Moderate John Warner seems unlikely to campaign strenuously for his wingnut junior Senator colleague. Allen has often failed to watch John Warner's back. I doubt very much whether John Warner will exert himself overmuch to support Allen: paybacks can be hell. Allen is his party's other star, but one can hardly be said to endorse oneself. Who am I leaving out? Oh yeah, George W. Bush is considered to be the "kiss of death" for any Republican candidate he stands next to. That could change between now and November 2006, but somehow I doubt it.
So what will the polls look like the first week of July 2006? Why that date? Because by that time the Democratic Primary will have named a candidate (my money is on Webb) and Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and (possibly) Doug Wilder will have lined up to give strong endorsements. Bumper stickers, yard signs, and billboards will have made their appearance. Campaign commericals and public appearances will have introduced our candidate to the wider voting public. If Mark Warner and Tim Kaine will campaign for our senatorial candidate the way that Mark Warner campaigned for Tim Kaine (i.e. tirelessly, ruthlessly driving themselves to get our message out), we will repeat the statewide electoral success we had in 2005.
As for the why? This is simple enough to explain: George Allen's record as a Senator and Governor are a record of dismal fiscal irresponsibility. Virginians have demonstrated time and time again that they prefer their state to be managed in a fiscally responsible manner. They disdain fiscal quackery and the running up of massive debts for future generations. They have even shown that they will tolerate modest tax increases as preferable to public debt. Allen's reign as Governor was the first half of the disastrous Allen-Gilmore administration that drove up Virginia's debts, dabbled in fiscal quackery, and nearly cost Virginia its triple AAA bond rating. The Warner-Kaine record of fiscal responsibility reversed much of the damage, though we are still not where we might have been were it not for the Allen-Gilmore detour into fiscal irresponsibility.
Virginia Republicans are tearing their hair out right now trying to answer the question "what happened in 2005?" The answer is that Virginians rejected a return to the Allen-Gilmore way of doing things and rejected Allen protégé Jerry Kilgore specifically. Allen's failure to support John Warner in his attempts to find moderate solutions in the Senate, Allen's support for pork barrel politics, Allen's ties to various corrupt Republican politicians and lobbyists, and Allen's own extreme social views will all play a part in causing Virginians to reject him in 2006, but fiscal irresponsibility will be the one great unforgiveable sin that will form the bedrock of his defeat. Once Virginians understand Allen's role in the disastrous fiscal policies he espoused in Virginia and in the U.S. Senate, Virginians will reject George Allen.
But, as I have noted elsewhere: a negative case for voting against someone is not enough. Democrats must field a solid candidate for Senate; one with a record of achievement and a positive vision that will invite Virginians to rally behind him or her and offer unstinting support.