I don't think either party will be successful is leading the country toward the coherent pursuit of a broader national agenda until the Iraq problem is solved. Iraq is the national obsession, and is consuming all of the nation's foreign policy attention. Every foreign policy proposal will be seen through the Iraq prism, and it will be impossible to summon the national will to do anything significant until we have extricated ourselves from that mess.

The ball we have to keep out eye on is ending the war. That was why it was important for Pelosi to lay down a marker this week. Right now forces are gathering in Washington on the Republican side, and in the Lieberman-Hoyer wing of the Democratic party to make a bipartisan push for deepening US involvement in Iraq, for increasing troops levels, for making one "final" victory push, and for betraying the majority of Americans - particularly Democrats - who want the government to start the process of getting out - now. Pelosi sent a clear signal this week that she actually paid attention to who voted in the election, and what they voted for, and that she plans to fight for their agenda, not the agenda of the interventionist classes who still seem to run most of Washington.

Most of this discussion seems to presuppose that the Democrats are going to have much of anything they can do to thwart the "Bush Doctrine," and they really don't. Oh, they can pass a few resolutions, but they don't have any direct control over much of the foreign policy decisions in the first place. The cynicism is a bit premature.

Funny thing is: the best thing they could do would probably be to do the one thing they all said they would not do: start up with the investigations. It's the only way to take already foul public opinion of the war and push it in the direction of a final withdraw that we need. Certainly, defunding the war would have devastating political consequences.

I agree with Dan K in that the only foreign policy discussion that matters now is the Iraq question. But the good news is that the Congress is a big place with lots of people working in it. They can have investigations up the wazoo and still work on far-more-realistic legislative domestic goals like minimum wage.

Watching from just above the water line. . . .

DragonFlyEye.Net

I think that the only thing to fear is fear itself. I must be the only person to ever think of that. Surely if somebody had said it before people would have remembered and made statues and stuff to commemmorate them. Too bad I have access to such a limited forum or people would surely build statues of me.
I'm hoping that now that we don't feel quite so impotent that we can start moving the country back to America. It's time that we started reassuring the American people that terrorists aren't the threat they think they are. It's been five years since 9/11. With no disrespect to the people who lost lives and loved ones the period of mourning needs to end. It's time to move on. In the time since the first plane approached the first tower we've lost more Americans to any number of accidents and diseases than to terrorism. Yes terrorists are a threat, slightly less of one than that bottle of scotch in your liquor cabinet. I've heard people say the Global War on Terror is anything but, because you can't win a war on something that will always exist. Terrorists are like cockroaches: it's wise to spray every now and then, but you'll never get rid of them. I also recognize how defeatist that sounds. So we need to explain that stopping the offensive is not the same as losing. Now for reality.
People need to get on with their political lives but we really do need to bring the boys back home to make that work. Otherwise were asking so few to do so much for so many that don't really care. The fundamental unfairness of that will make any Democrat flinch.
My point is that unfortunately the foreign policy "big picture" is not going to have the luxury of forming after the debates have been framed away from the "GWOT" unless it's willing to warm the benches for a few years. But you're right that it is time to start moving in that direction.
I'm concerned that anything the Democrats do is going to hurt their reputation because at this point all choices are bad ones. The upside is that the same holds true for Republicans. The other down side is that the population on the whole is going to get further disenchanted with both parties. The other upside is that I don't think the electorate is stupid enough to seriously start advocating third parties. I disagree with your capilary premise. I think it's important for both parties that the Democrats prove deft at conducting enough hearings (that is appropriate hearings) to reassure Americans that Government is accountable without overdoing it, even if it means letting a few big fish get away. Considering the diversities of the Democratic caucus, the media disseminators and the American listeners, I don't think I'll hold my breath. As for going for the jugular, overreaching by the new leadership will surely bring political retribution in '08 which we can ill-afford for any number of reasons. Of course this is assuming that the American populace is paying enough attention to foreign affairs issues to even know that the jugular was being sought. The Bush Doctrine that you lay out is not something that Congressional Democrats are going to be able to drive out of the Executive Branch in two years and if they constantly appeal to the American public to force the Administration to alter itself they'll come off as world-class whiners with undesirable political consequences.
The best Congressional Democrats can do in this arena is to conduct themselves with comportment, pick their fights carefully, educate the public respectfully and cultivate their relationship with the American military officers, servicemen and families to minimize the unavoidable backlash associated with suggestions of withdrawal. Serious foreign policy overhauls outside the "GWOT" will probably have to wait for a new Administration.

I can figure it out. But then, I live in Illinois where we have long since abandoned the idea that there is anything but the power party, led by whoever dispenses the boodle. Say hello to the first act of Denny Pelosi.

=== Also, since the Democratic party split itself into two camps over the Vietnam War in the nineteen-sixties with a vocal and grossly disrespectful anti-war movement taking center stage the party [...] ===

Would you be so kind as to define "grossly disrespectful", in this context, for me? Thank you.

sPh

Here's the boss lady Democrat's idea of democracy, according to the Orange County Register (I got this from Kausfiles, however):

Inside the room where the election was being held, there were boxes for members to drop their secret ballots. Pelosi and her crew watched as people voted. Some members actually brought fellow lawmakers with them when they marked their ballots so they could prove to Pelosi that they did vote for Murtha. And because the Murtha vote ended up being so small, the Pelosi forces can count almost down to the last ballot who voted for Murtha and who for Hoyer.

(She's got 'em on the list--she's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed--they'll none of 'em be missed.)

Needless to say, if a Republican got caught doing something like this, this site would be crapping Easter eggs in its excitement to declare fascism a-bornin'.

The Democrats have numbers in Congress now. If every Democrat were to vote for Rangel's bill, it would become law.

Most of the Neocon hawks are no longer 'legislating' in Washington so their mouths are silent.

I suppose it would put the president in an awkward position...

Of course this proposal will get little or no serious consideration, but Rangel's argument that a military requirement would make elected officials "think twice" is a nothing more than the kind of sophistry we have seen from the Neocons during the last 6 years.

Speaker-Elect Pelosi led a significant number of House Democrats to vote against the Iraq resolution. Hoyer and Murtha voted for this resolution. Murtha, in a surprising and (what seemed to me) truthful way renounced his previous vote a year ago and became a staunch and well-respected critic of the Iraq War. Hoyer has still not repudiated his vote for this resolution.

I do not view Speaker-Elect Pelosi's support of Murtha as a tactical error. In one move, she showed her appreciation of Murtha's turnaround and served notice to the House members, including Hoyer, of how important she considered one's position on the Iraq war and courage in changing one's mind. Any House member now knows that changing his/her position on the Iraq War will receive the Speaker-Elect's support. It was done graciously and without rancor. But I think she made her point that she admires those who speak truth to power. It was an ethical and principled stand.

It is also worthy of note that Speaker-Elect Pelosi was elected unanimously. She has the personal support needed and lost very little of it, if any, in her support of Murtha. I would say she gained much.

I also note that the ABSCAM video did not surface with Murtha's turnaround a year ago. It is interesting to speculate on exactly who "found" this video just in time to attempt to influence this voting.

"If every Democrat were to vote for Rangel's bill, it would become law."

Well... it would be presented to the President for signing. I'm not so sure it would become law.

Having said that, we probably shouldn't be too quick to tear down the House Speaker-Elect either. She owed Congressman Murtha one and it speaks well that she didn't forget those who put her in her position.

I'm sure you have the same enlightened attitude toward, say, Dick Cheney "owing Halliburton one."

How about owing the people one?

P.S. Ah, another 1 rating in violation of site rules from CVille Dem. I can think of many things that C might stand for in the case of someone hiding behind the rating system.

Your suggestion that no foreign policy initiatives are possible before Iraq is taken care of is immensely depressing because whether or not the troops leave tomorrow it's going to take years to fully extricate ourselves from the issue.

Well, that's too bad Alan. Unfortuanately, Iraq is the issue at the top of voters' agendas. That doesn't mean that we have to be out of Iraq entirely before we can do anything else. But it does mean that before we can expect voter support on any major forein policy commitments, we need to have addressed the issue and turned things in the proper direction - and the direction the voters prefer is out.

Rangle may simply be bluffing. But it is a high stakes game and I would prefer he didn't play it.

Golden Easter eggs if Hastert had done this.

By the way, I followed the link to my own old post about why Kerry lost me. Not sure what it's supposed to prove, but I stand by it. Better to stand by that than to stand by new crooks like Murtha pretending they're going to clean up the messes of old crooks like Hastert (who, as much as anything, went down for protecting a Democrat's right to keep bribe money in his freezer).

Alan says: "I think it important to remember that military service is in time of a draft a duty and at all times an honour as well as a risk. It in no way vindicates a political viewpoint or action because it is service to the entire country, not just the red part."

Please remember Alan, All that honor and duty is to protect this country from others. Not for us to make war on others. There is no duty and honor when it comes to America utilizing the industrial war complex to go on imperialistic adventures. You need to define the threat to our national security before you start with this honor, duty and committment.

"It saddens me to hear that you would maim your children to prevent them from partaking in the most fundamental of civic gestures because you're angry with the leadership"

As a parent with two sons, as well, it outrages me that you think this is about the leadership rather than the morality of waging wars without regard for our childrens' lives. Other peoples' children have to die just so they can expand a corporate moguls globalistic greed as opposed to protecting our national security. The most fundamental civic gesture as a citizen is to NOT support wars for capitalism out of some misguided sense of patriotism. My son's life means more to me than putting more money in the pockets of multinational corporations and oil robber barons and it means a helluva lot more to me than the soverignty of any countrys 'right to exist' by fiat of stolen land.

"I am more sympathetic if your actions are driven by your fear of them dying, but that is not political."

Your 'compassionate grief' for fear is condensending ignorance to the political reality which costs those with misguided patriotism their lives, while exhorting it as their fundamental civic duty. What hogwash.

I'd accept a slight modification of Rangel's bill. First, the draft age would change to those of age during the Vietnam War. Second, unlike the present reliance on calling vets back into service, it would be restricted to those who found a way out of serving in the Vietnam War. Third, it would be restricted to those now holding elective office, which of course exempt me.

I realize this leaves a very small pool, and only a few, such as Bush, are fit enough to run those miles for marine training. However, I'm not in favor of an army big enough to extend the Iraq war or permit imminent military action in Iran anyhow. If necessary, we could always extend it with clones of the forementioned pool, but I realize that would require legalizing stem-cell research.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

So, when we need troops we should rely on the convicted. Hmmm...

There is a very, very real difference between serving in the military and supporting adventurism. Military service is in no way false patriotism. Refusal to serve or manipulation of your condition or any other method of illegitimate service avoidance when called is a gross dereliction of duty as a citizen. Some other gross derelictions of duty include lying the country into a war, attacking a people who pose no threat, managing a conflict with flagrant incompetence and continuing a losing cause that costs lives for fear of losing face or revenues.
My respect for fear is neither condescending nor ignorant. I have children of my own and there is nothing on Earth I fear more than losing them. But my fear for their death has nothing to do with politics. My suggestion is that I either fear their loss so significantly that I would sabotage their enlistment based on my fear of the risk of death or not at all.
Because military service itself is not political the decision to do this would have nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the war. Service is honorable (barring conduct unbecoming of a servicemember which is illegal under the Uniform Code of Miltary Justice and covers war crimes, black marketeering and such) even if the national circumstance is questionable. If you believe that answering a call to service is a political act then you fundamentally misunderstand military service. If you elude or avoid service to make a political point then you are abusing the uniform services. There are many legitimate ways to make a political statement and to NOT support the war. Avoidance of compulsory military service is not one of them.

Dear Whiterosebuddy, Thank you. You said it better than I could. I happen to believe, just as you do, that there is no honor in dying for Halliburton. I appreciate especially your comments about the 'compassionate grief.'

I fundamentally disagree with this administration that the best way to solve conflicts is to fight about them. Why should anyone sacrifice his/her life for their country when their country is going in the wrong direction? That is not honor; that is enabling madmen!

Jan Knaus

You seem to be saying that you would be equally willing to send your children off to a war you regard as unjust as to one you regard as just. Your code of morality, honor and duty differs from CVille Dem's, but most of us would agree that there's no single objective moral standard by which your code is legitimate and hers is not. The belief that our moral code comes from within and cannot be dictated has many adherents, as does the practice of civil disobedience as a civic duty to correct the course of our government when it goes wrong.

I'm growing tired of this argument. I will address your points and then I will admit that I am not going to change your point of few and assure you that I will not change mine. I'll request that we agree to disagree and then perhaps we can move on to the other things on which most if not all of us do agree.

"...if you believe your country is fighting an immoral war and you are drafted with the intent that you are supposed to fight and kill people that you believe don't deserve to die, then why do you say that 'avoidance of military service' is an illegitimate thing to do?"

First of all, soldiers are not monsters. Civillians are not monsters. The vast majority of combatants and non-combatants alike do not deserve to die. This is the case with modern day Iraqis, it was the case with the soldiers of the Wehrmacht and the sailors of the Imperial Japanese Navy. It was the case with citizens caught in the flames of Atlanta, the Redcoats at Yorktown and at least nine out of every ten casualties of war from the stone age to the present day, everywhere. War is nothing but tragedy.
The honorable way to not kill these people is to not put in power those who would go to war, or those who would extend a war. The honorable way to not kill these people in a democracy is to talk to your representatives and to tell them that you do not want these people to die.
In this particular country the military is apolitical. I'm not suggesting that individuals inside the military have no political leanings but the army goes to battle when it is ordered to and it leaves the battlefield when it is ordered to. It fights when it is ordered to and it retreats when it is ordered to regardless of who is in power. Our military is supplicant to the civilian leadership not the other way around. I say it is an illegitimate method because when our military is ordered to war, even a terrible and unjustified war, if our military needs us then we are obligated as citizens to respond. This is spelled out explicitly in the oath of citizenship that any American citizen not fortunate enough to be born here has had to swear:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."

Your fortune of geographic origin does not excuse you this obligation.

And lastly the Administration has never made military service a political act because they do not have that power.

I'm sorry to get so testy, but as a veteran I am proud of my service, proud of my branch of service and immensely proud of my fellow soldiers throughout our history. I know the honor of serving first hand; neither you nor the President can besmirch it. I would be doubly honored if my daughters served when their time comes, though I would be very trepiditious regarding their safety.

I'm not going to call you a traitor if you refuse to serve if drafted. But neither am I going to shrink from informing you that you are not meeting your citizenship obligations should you, under such circumstances, take that route. Fortunately you're right that at this point it is moot. With that in mind I'd like to stop arguing about this and wish all of you the best luck in helping to get all our servicemen out of there quickly so that we can resurrect other foreign policy arguments that aren't so despairing.

Cheers!

The Constitution, Article 1, section 8, says: Congress has the power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years".  I think that is where the authority for a military draft comes from.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Dan:

For your general information, please note my post to Hoppy in this thread.

~OGD~

About the performance of Speaker Pelosi.

My point was not to persecute the Speaker, but to point to the costs of not keeping your eye on the ball. Many believe Pelosi took her eye off the ball by picking a losing fight she didn't have to take on. The Dems need to be about redefining the terms of the debate -- domestic and international -- to get their messages out to the public in ways that advance a broader, more inclusive vision of America's future. Pelosi's initial loss is instructive because it reminds us what happens when you lose focus -- you lose.

Re: That other Congressional leader - Rep. Charles Rangel and his remarks on the draft. The main point is less the 13th amendment, and more a question of the justice and injustice of the current arrangements. As it is, few if any of the 100 members of the Senate, or the 435 members of the House, have children serving with the military in Iraq. Few have children serving in the military, period. Doesn't that strike you as odd? If you walk up and down most neighborhoods in Dallas or Detroit, don't you think you would find parents with children in the war? If the 535 members of our legislature had children who they would send into harm's way with their votes, don't you think they might have thought twice before fanning the flames of war in the Middle East? By the way - Rangel did fight in a hot war - Korea - and represents a Congressional district in New York where a bunch of his constituents return home in body bags.

So we need to keep our eye on the ball to reframe the issue - keep it on the administration's culpability in the Iraq tragedy, and help put America back on the right track to greater security and opportunity.

I think I have thought this through Tuomas.

The United States has engaged its military abroad in dozens of operations, in just this century alone. Very few of those operations were necessary to the defense of the nation. In some cases, the military actions were taken even though there had been no attack of any kind on the US. In at least one case, Iraq, the US was indeed attacked, but then in response the US government chose to attack a country whose government and people had not participated in the provoking attack.

In my view, this pattern of criminal military adventurism is made possible, and even likely, because the US government commands an abundance of military resources, including soldiers. For a government, soldiers are like money. If a government has money, it will spend it. Governments don't save money for a rainy day. Similarly, if you give a government soldiers, it will use them. The only way to deprive the government of the power to engage in military adventurism is to deprive it of the soldiers in needs for the task.

The power to compel citizens to participate in military activity is an awesome and dangerous power that turns a free government into a tyranny. Some have argued recently that if we had a draft in 2003, the US government would never have launched this war. How quickly we forget. Just three decades ago the US government used the draft to fight a long war that killed 20 times as many young Americans as have died in the current war! Governments and whole societies - including the US - have shown throughout history that they do not suffer collectively from an overabundance of maternal and paternal feeling toward their young men, but are generally happy to send them off to various slaughters.

You are right that is a country is attacked, it is the responsibility of the country's government to lead the defense. The question is where it is to get the soldiers who will participate in that defense. Your view seems to be that the responsibility to lead the defense includes the right to command individuals to participate in the defense. My view is that this government power is incompatible with the conception of a free country.

You are right that any nation is dependent for its survival on the population participating in its defense if attacked. My sense is that your view of the matter is that the nation, as a corporate entity, has a supreme right to existence and survival, and that the supremacy of that right supercedes the liberty rights of the individuals constituting the nation. My view is that the nation exists only by the free choice of the individuals who constitute it. The life of the nation, such as it is, is a gift of the individuals who choose to participate in constituting a nation and participating in its life. It is the privilege of individuals to grant or withdraw their support for the nation and its life as they see fit.

If a society is healthy, then there will be no shortage of those who rush to its defense when the society is attacked. If a society is so sick that the only way it can successfully defend itself is to compel people to serve in its defense, then it is doomed anyway.

Does the Constitution prevent an individual state from granting itself the power to conscript its citizens into its National Guard?

Just curious.

that the states would be the bulwark of liberty against an overreching national government has been changed by the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement and other uses of the Federal Government.

Thank God for RFK. That is one man who had the courage to use the office of AG to execute the laws of the nation without regard to the politics of collusion. Bobby stood up against, labor, KKK, Bull Connor, CCC, and the mafia...he understood the powers of the federal government ot ensure the safety and freedom of ALL Americans. God Bless him for executing the scope of powers his office entailed. America is a better place simply because he had the courage of his convictions and strength of character to stand for what is right and put an end to so much injustice in America.

Dan:

I truly appreciate the reasoning and input that you have provided in http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/nov/18/thank_you_nancy_pelosi#comment-181869 “>your comment, although specific to this following point.

The justices might have argued, with more reason…

There can be little doubt that we as a nation need individuals with the passion and wherewithal that you exhibit in your comment. I now choose my battles carefully be it that I’m in my sixth decade of pushing against the wheel.

~OGD~

The battle to write the history of significant events goes on long after the events themselves. Were protestors dirty hippies or were they informed citizens doing their civic duty to correct the course of a government gone wrong? Did we lose in Vietnam because of the media and protestors or because it was an imperialistic war waged in ignorance of Vietnamese history and culture? Those who hold the former view learn the wrong lessons from Vietnam, and repeat the mistakes of Vietnam elsewhere. In the same vein, those who have repeated those mistakes elsewhere (or who profit when the government repeats those mistakes) are doubly motivated to shape and control how people perceive opposition to the use of US military force in both Vietnam and Iraq.

Just an historical fact. Paul Gorman , who was
McCarthy's PR director in 68 , says that McCarthy
was completely uninvolved in the Chicago protests. Paul with some difficulty had to persuade McCarthy to try and intervene
to shield at least some of the protestors from the police.

Living abroad my source of information was that well known fire-brand Alistair Cooke who described the police entering the hotel lobby where he was having a drink with a British MP and attempting to drag her out -I don't remember why - until he was able to point out that they were on the verge of creating an international incident which might not please Mayor Daley.

Apparently there was no shortage of disrespect at the time.

Why should anyone sacrifice his/her life for their country when their country is going in the wrong direction?

I'm not sure I understand this.

Maybe I just don't get your usage of the term retraining?

A friend of mine became teacher late in her life, after the age of 50, as she had become unemployed and couldn't find a job with her old rather meager qualifications. Another after she'd became a mother at 35, and didn't find travelling and overtime being easy to combine with her new situation. A couple of my former collegues at a nursing home, where I as a student earned some "extra" money, have re-educated themselves away from the health-care business, one of them now working as a plumber. The more I think, the more examples I find of carrier change among relatives, friends, and friends of friends. Some due to changes on the labor market, i.e. jobs moving away, others due to changes in their own lifes or in their own mentality. Some to jobs with higher status, some to jobs that were lesser paid or of lower status but maybe easier to combine with their private life, or at least better than no job at all.

What has been significant in these cases is that governmental support has made the effort possible. Without the government actually giving out money for their education and in most cases also lending or granting them money to live on while "not being at the disposal of the labor market", they would not had a chance, nor would they have had the courage, but would have remained either unemployed or working below their potential.

/Tuomas