The formidable Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings has an interesting article in the American Spectator, asking whether a Democratic administration really would have the ability or the inclination to "fix Iraq better" than the Republicans, as all the credible candidates claim. This from the perspective of "right wing doves," that is, those libertarians who tend to view the war as yet another doomed, wasteful government program. I don't share Henley's pessimism about the prospects for a further degree of success in Iraq and the middle east (and recent developments in Libya would seem to confirm that inclination) but he makes a couple of good, well-argued points: (a) "we'll get more international help is not a policy, it's a hope"; and (b) like it or not, the broad outlines of the war on terror have been drawn and are unlikely to be altered radically no matter who wins in 2004, and no matter what they're saying now. (See Robert Kagan's recent comments on Howard Dean's supposed McGovern-esqueness.) The difference will be of manner, style, comportment, rhetorical emphasis, etc. Of course, those things matter in diplomacy, and it's certainly possible to argue that some different administration might be better equipped to handle the entire situation more competently. (Though, in truth, none of these guys inspire overwhelming confidence on that score. Thus far, no campaign has managed to figure out how to exploit Bush's two most obvious weaknesses: Saudi-coddling and fiscal profligacy. That's competence?) The war on terror can be tweaked, but it won't be abandoned. Those who imagine that replacing the Bushies will lead to the isolationist America of their dreams are bound to be disappointed. Anyway, if you're looking for a fresh spin on a spectacularly overspun topic, Henley's your man.
Posted by Dr. Frank at December 22, 2003 05:14 PM | TrackBack