Peter Beinart has an editorial today in the Washington Post. It’s about the Democrats’ recent criticisms of Bush’s foreign policy and it’s entitled Pander and Run. I rarely agree with Peter Beinart, who is an editor-at-large for The New Republic. But in this particular case I have no choice. Beinart points to three recent incidents:
1. The Dubai Ports Deal
2. Amnesty for Iraqis that have fought the occupation
3. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki’s speech before Congress.
In each of these cases the Democrats have taken a political vulnerability for the President and used it for full political advantage. But, in each of these cases, they have made our country less safe and the job of improving our image in the Middle East more difficult.
The Dubai Ports deal did not represent a real threat to our national security. Our Navy is based in the United Arab Emirates and they are an essential ally. Needlessly alienating them was stupid.
The proposed amnesty for Iraqi ‘insurgents’ is distasteful, to say the least, but it is also aimed at reducing the violence in Iraq. If al-Maliki needs to release some prisoners to make compromises then we should not make his life more difficult.
And it was just ridiculous to expect Maliki to denounce Hezbollah while Israel is raining bombs on southern Lebanon. Anyone that thinks that having Maliki do that would be helpful to our national security is a dunderhead.
All three of these cases represent an instance of Democrats behaving like Republicans and using a wedge issue to score cheap policial points that don’t advance any positive cause. In fact, these recent events have been positively unhelpful from any perspective other than a purely electoral one.
It’s unacceptable. I know that the GOP does this stuff to us. I’m not saying that we should always be fair to them. But when we are unfair we should be careful to at least be right on the merits. In these recent cases we’ve been wrong on the merits.
Three swings, three whiffs. I had issues with Maliki’s speech, but not that he didn’t denounce Hezbollah. (The part that got me was the “no more 1991s jab.)
Sometimes a specific instance is used to spotlight a larger (and more emotional) issue. In that context, I don’t see these 3 instances being as black and white as Boo and Beinart do.
On the ports deal, there were two somewhat legitimate points: first, why does the US need to hire other nations to run our facilities — a shadow of this country’s decline as an economic competent. Second, the deal was made secretly with no prior discussion on the specific case or the general policy. The Dems were left to shut up or speak after the deal was done and announced. And they did force some concessions.
The “amnesty” idea illuminates the abject failure of the Iraq invasion. There is no stable state, there is no visible future for a “democratic Iraq”. Did the Dems play it cheap? Yes. Should they have kept quiet? No.
The speech was an opportunity to raise a question about what kind of allies we’re creating and sleeping with in our monomaniacal and fraudulent “war on terror”. The situation in Iraq and the ME is a direct consequence of the behavior of the “West”. Iraq supposedly is an independent government now. As such it deserves no special treatment, especially for a speech obviously created from White House talking points.
So yeah, the Dems played it cheap, and worse, amateurish. They grabbed headline opportunities and ran with them as best they could. I think it’s about time.
Lest I come off as a Dem fanboy, I should note that the article misses the behavior by Dems that does make me want to puke: their harmful and dishonest move to get on the bandwagon of calling any criticism of Israel “anti-semitic”. This is fraudulent and shameless enought to make me wonder if I can keep supporting the party at all.
On the ports deal: other countries were, and continue to run our ports. The issue became one of Arab-owned vs. British-owned, and was seen in the region as a slap in the face for the UAE. As some of us noted during the “discussion”, they have simply exercised their option to sell, and are looking elsewhere for major projects in the Gulf region. No gain.
The “amnesty”, rather than “abject failure” is as Martin notes above: an effort to reduce the levels of violence. The Democratic response was spit in the wind, and did nothing to even further the debate, much less point to a solution.
Al-Maliki’s speech was an exercise in restraint given the level of “animosity” toward Israel by his entire population. Democrats took a cheap shot and got nailed on it. Rightly so.
The ports deal was insignificant on its face, but did legitimately bring forward questions on the nature of our “alliances”. The UAE is a dictatorship of the kind the US is supposedly fighting to bring about a free and democratic ME. The ports deal was a convenient, if flawed, peg on which to hang a point of view on the bigger questions. This came up only because the Bush regime is too arrogant, secretive, and tone-deaf to avoid it. After it was a done deal, the Dems were in a position where they either shut up or were put in the position of being “anti-Arab” or “anti-Muslim”. I think they had to speak up under circumstances that never should have happened.
Allies are not necessarily friends, nor are they necessarily trustworthy in every situation. Pakistan is our number one ally among Islamic countries. Does that mean you’d have no problem if a state-run Pakistani corporation got a contract to run US air-traffic control, for example? Point is, such a situation should never arise in public.
The amnesty proposal was not the failure. It pointed to the failure of the entire Iraq invasion/occupation. As far as I’m concerned, Dems should be doing a lot more, not less, pointing to the contradictions and failures of that policy.
I think it’s also interesting that Beinart didn’t take this opportunity to hit Dems for their abject bandwagonning re “opposition to anything Israel does = anti-semitism”. Golden opportunity for Dem bashing, but TNR’s agenda requires shutting up about that.
The UAE is a dictatorship of the kind the US is supposedly fighting to bring about a free and democratic ME. The ports deal was a convenient, if flawed, peg on which to hang a point of view on the bigger questions.
the UAE is a dictatorship, but hardly representative of other repressive governments in the region. UAE is actually kind of unique. it’s a confederation of seven different governments. none real democracies, but each having at least some kind of voting system. it’s really more like an oligarchy. also, dubai in particular is really unique in the middle east. it has a lot more in common with singapore than it does with saddam’s iraq.
so i think it’s quite a flawed peg if you’re trying to make a point about the larger middle east. much of the debate about the dubai port deal, i thought, was based on ignorance of what exactly the UAE is.
You miss the point. The whole Ports deal exposed the fundamental hypocrisy of the Bush middle east agenda.
In other words, “new Middle East” and “democratization” are simply sticks to hit non-compliant regimes and movements. Indeed, the US will amply reward and support the quintessence of the “old Middle East” when it suits their purposes or the “old Middle East” players are rich pro-western oil sheiks. Yeah, the US took a hit in public relations as a result. But this hit pales in comparison to the damage of the current crisis. We can only win the far struggle if we first win the near struggle – i.e. we need to get these incompetent nuts out of office, and then we can start winning the war on terror.
Dave your dead right.
In some ways, I think Beinart gets a bad rap. But I think he’s missing some of the broader points the Dems scored here.
Its kind of like a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11. In many ways, its a dishonest and manipulative film. But in a META-SENSE, its accurate, in that pulls the curtain down a bit from Bush’s Wizard of Oz strong leader stage managing. In this way, its valuable.
I’ll get to your rhetorical question, but first let’s stick to the facts: the problem was not the Bush administration’s “slam-dunk” approach to the P&O sale – a process well-known on the Hill – but rather their failure to implement policies and procedures to protect the ports.
Had the Democrats focused on the true issues, rather than the red-herring that was the sale, they would still be enjoying some positives. As it was they were put into the position of calling Coast Guard, Port Authority, and other DHS personnel before their committees only to be told those organizations had requested, but not received sufficient funds to secure our shipping lanes and ports according to the laws passed by this same Congress.
Further, maintenance of the existing British staff was a requirement of the sale. [A rather full record available through GulfNews.com]. So how was that proposal a “danger”? The U.S. paid big time both economically and on the world stage by debating false issues.
Your like argument equating ATC (another globally managed transportation system) is specious. Apples and rocks. Same goes for the “amnesty-as-proof” argument. American opinion is just that, and bears no resemblance to the reality on the ground anywhere but here.
But WTF, in discussions like these, why let a few facts get in the way of a good partisan diatribe.
I forgot to ask, why is it undiscussable that our puppet Iraq leader absolutely and obviously cannot criticize an organization the the US calls a terrorist force? Apparently the US has deposed an opponent of terrorism and replaced him with one who “must” support it. Seems to me that’s a bit of surrealism that needs a lot more airing, not less.
The Dubai Ports deal did not represent a real threat to our national security. Our Navy is based in the United Arab Emirates and they are an essential ally. Needlessly alienating them was stupid.
I’m not going to rehash the same arguments when this was debated in February, but I’ve been in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. The fact that it’s at this moment in time, part of our ME colonial empire of expansion, doesn’t make it a thrustworthy partner.
There were only three nations allied to the Taliban and the Al Qaeda movement in 2001: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. All are dictatorial Islamic regimes with a lack of human rights and no democracy.
The port issue has gravely hurt the image of Bush as a leader on security matters, and thus has a backlash on Republicans this fall.
Points 2 and 3 are very minor and will have no effect on public opinion or the choice of voters this fall.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
the UAE will recognize any country in the world if it wants access to its markets. it’s recognition of the taliban had more to do with afghanistan’s resources (and its falcon hunting) than any ideology. to call them “allies of al qaeda” is way off base. especially for a country knee deep in the bush administration’s extraordinary rendition program.
.
Is the UAE guilty of providing material support to terrorism since 9/11?
On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support … that contributed more to consolidating our people’s resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation”.
At top level of government, the discussion of its leaders with the U.S. has little bearing on the sympathy and financial dealings of the local UAE residents. Large sums of cash are handcarried across the city to make a financial deal, will not show in any bank transaction.
Falcon hunting?
● ‘CIA planes used emirates airports’ in covert global `rendition’ programme
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
i don’t get your point. you list the subject as “al-qaeda/terror funding” but none of what you say or link to indicates that the UAE government finances al-qaeda.
it’s not surprising at all that they fund hamas, much of the middle east does. but hamas is not al-qaeda.
and it’s not saying much that al-qaeda funding passes through the financial institutions of the UAE. it is the financial capital of the region. as it happens al-qaeda funding also passes through financial institutions in europe and the US, that doesn’t mean any of their governments are complicit in al-qaeda activities.
what you haven’t pointed to is any evidence that the UAE government is an ally of al-qaeda. that’s the assertion i was contesting
The Dubai Ports deal did not represent a real threat to our national security. Our Navy is based in the United Arab Emirates and they are an essential ally. Needlessly alienating them was stupid.
We have lots of allies, that doesn’t mean we hand over control of our ports.
Agree with the rest though.
but we handed over control of our posts to our allies a long time ago. the dubai port deal was about a business deal that would transfer control from a british-based company to a dubai-based company. it wasn’t about the transfer of control from the u.s. to a foreign company
For six years the majority party (repubs) has cynically reduced the level of national discourse to lies and half-truths, just one wedge issue after another designed to win elections, at whatever cost to the national interest. Under those circumstances, I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask that the Dems do anything different from the Repubs, in the hopes of taking over the Sanate and House in 06.
It’s sad for the country, but if the Repubs have been using every dirty trick in the book for the past 6 yrs or more, why should we hold the Dems to the Marquis of Queensbury rules?
Hey Boo,
Good thread. I’ve got to disagree with you on Dubai – respectfully, of course. We missed an opportunity to be rid of bin Laden once and for all because he was with members of the UAE royals falconing in Afghanistan. Consequently, an outraged Clinton backed off pulling the trigger. Our guy Larry Johnson said it’s a smugglers paradise with all the trimmings. ( I’m paraphrasing, I beg your pardon. ) AQ Khan used Dubai as a port for some of his “enterprises”… as far as the other two, I strongly agree. Hey, Beinart’s still batting .667, Ted Williams didn’t even do that. Beinart certainly can debate well, he can usually disassemble the brightest righties in short shrift. I can see why Josh likes him. Foer is where Beinart was now but I still won’t subscribe to TNR – despite the fact there have some writers there that are outstanding. Maybe in time.
Well, I’m sorry that you feel this way. I look to you, yes,I look to you, for decent, progressive analysis. This is not decent, progessive analysis. You couldn’t be more wrong. Here’s a “Democrat” pissing on the Party. You ought not support a person like this. You do us all harm.
I shouldn’t support myself then because I don’t think the party is doing the right thing in these cases.