Edwards for the Defense
On most issues, it is difficult to go beyond sound bites and vague phrases in the context of a modern presidential campaign. However, on at least one issue -- national security -- John Edwards has set himself apart from his two main rivals, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps Edwards' most important contribution to the discussion has been his thorough critique of the whole notion of a "Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)."
In a May 2007 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards described the GWOT as a "political doctrine" that has been used "like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his [Bush's] administration, from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to the war in Iraq." Later in the same remarks, he described it as "a bumper sticker, not a plan." Edwards took some criticism at the time of the speech, but he happens to be right on this important point.
To his credit, Edwards has also refused to get into a "bidding war" over who can propose larger troop increases for the U.S. military, noting that "the numbers approach only gets us into the same problem as the president's approach" unless there is a clear idea of "what the troops will actually be used for." This common sense position doesn't automatically mean that Edwards would not increase the size of the Army and the Marines if elected, but at least he hasn't locked himself into that position in advance, as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have done.
Finally, Edwards has made a concrete proposal for how to re-balance U.S. security spending so that non-military tools like law enforcement, diplomacy, intelligence, energy policy and foreign assistance get their fair share of funding. He suggests the creation of a "National Security Budget" that would include not only spending on the Pentagon, but also on the Department of Energy, the State Department, and other foreign affairs agencies. This would allow for more informed tradeoffs among the various security instruments. As Edwards has noted, "We have one agency on steroids -- the Pentagon -- while the civilian agencies are on life support."
This is not to suggest that Edwards' security plans are without fault. Most notably, he has so far been unwilling to renounce the use of force in connection with Iran's nuclear program, even though an "all options on the table" approach is counterproductive in the extreme. Any workable deal with Iran will have to start with a U.S. pledge not to launch military strikes or engage in "regime change" efforts. Otherwise, the Iranian leadership will have no incentive to curb their nuclear program.
In future posts I will look at the security positions of other major presidential candidates, as well as taking a more in depth look at the positions of John Edwards.
Thanks. Edwards is beginning to sound like Richardson with brains.
Look forward to further installments.
Best, Terry
September 12, 2007 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Donald Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace don't like the "global war on terror".
Rumsfeld: "At the present time -- we've used the phrase 'global war against terror,' which I find not perfect. I think that it is really a long struggle, as opposed to a war, which implies armies, navies, air forces and Marines contesting each other. It is irregular, it's asymmetric, and it is not against terrorism per se; it is against these violent extremists who use terrorism, but they also could use other things."
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3823
More from Rummy: " I guess I don't think I would have called it the war on terror. I don't mean to be critical of those who have or did or -- and certainly I've used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? I say it because the word "war" conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War, and it creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within the 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. And it isn't going to happen that way.
"Furthermore, it's not a war on terror. Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and impose their -- in the hands of a small group of clerics, their dark vision on all the people that they can control.
"So 'war on terror' has a problem for me, and I've worked to try to reduce the extent to which that's used, and increase the extent to which we understand it more as a long war or a struggle or a conflict, not against terrorism but against a relatively small number, but terribly dangerous and lethal, violent extremists."
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3824
Pace: "People talk about, 'Are you winning?' First, you have to define: What is winning? And I don't mean to be glib about that. Winning in this war on terrorism is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function.
"Example. Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function. That's what you're looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, or anyplace else."
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3765
September 12, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a semantic difference.
I suspect he feels left out of the FP debate, having run more on domestic issues, and is looking for a way to assert himself aggressively. Which imo only further highlights his lack of FP substance.
And the one thing I never liked about him: that he tries to be too slick and assertive and tends to out-wit himself in the process.
Neither Obama or Clinton argue that the "GWOT" should be waged as a conventional war afaik. Obama always opposed the war in Iraq and how the Bush admin has proceeded generally, and Clinton though voting to authorize force, has stated she expected further inspections and has been a critic of the admin's implementation of that authority to use force.
Those are real issues. And while I can understand how language shapes debates, and how semantics matter to some degree, and so on... I don't see how Edwards is really contributing anything with this semantic hair splitting.
September 12, 2007 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't semantic hair splitting, but a major break from the rest of the war mongering crowd. Once you acknowledge that there is no GWOT, lots of options become available, starting with withdrawing our troops from Iraq, continuing with scaling down the military budget, and getting away from the fetish about being a commander in chief. So far, only Edwards gets it. I give him great credit for that.
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 12, 2007 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hair splitting? Surely you jest?
Obama and Clinton have both gone for the GWOT meme which is nothing but a red herring. That John Edwards pointed out that it is only a slogan used to justify ill-advised and often criminal acts took a bit of guts, but more importantly was very needed. Obama and Clinton both have only adjusted their appeals to the center because of the pressure being brought to bear on them from numerous sources on the left, John Edwards not he least of such forces. And that is a good thing. None of the leading Presidential contenders has any claim whatsoever on the experience mantle where foreign policy is concerned. So what? The real question is whether or not the candidates have good judgement, the capacity and interest to learn about the nuances and details necessary to having a good understanding of world affairs, etc... Edwards has some good proposals on national security. I agree with Mr. Hartung that the "no options off the table" approach to Iran is unsound and Edwards needs to change that. Overall, however, I think Edwards is making a real contribution to the debate and one that is in the national interest.
September 12, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards is absolutly right; there's no such thing as Global War on Terror, except in our own terrorised minds. And *that* war should be easy enough to fight -- just issue "a Prozac-a-day to keep the panic away". Would require a single-payer national health insurance, but he's got *that* flank of it covered also.
And I like his idea of creating a single "National Security Budget", from which funds could be shifted to various aspects of *broadly understood* "security" *as needed* (would I rather die of thirst due to changing climate than wear a burka if the jihadists "follow us here"? Not really; I like it that someone understands there's more to "security" than cowering from Muslims)
Of course, the devil's in the details and in application; on paper, the communist system sounds good also but, having grown up in it, I'm all too familiar with certain... I don't know... snags?
September 12, 2007 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, that's a wonderful slogan.
Maybe Kozmik would consent to being the first guinea pig in a clinical trial. He will feel so much better and then we will have another vote for Edwards by a rabid rightwinger.
Thank you so much.
Best, Terry
September 12, 2007 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems have, as I guess all parties always have, a slate of imperfect candidates. Edwards seems to me to be the least imperfect.
I would really like to see him come out foursquare in favor of the restoration of constitutional liberties, particularly but not limited to the instantaneous restoration of habeas corpus. The first candidate who does that will have my support.
Unless it's Hillary.
September 13, 2007 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, those options don't just automatically become winners and convince the public once you stop calling it the GWOT. Get real.
"GWOT" is semantics. You can call it a "war" or a "conflict" or a "police action" or whatever. Regardless, Iraq is still a military action authorized by congress which it lacks the votes to repeal and which this admin refuses to end.
You can argue the power of semantics, how so-and-so will change once we describe it differently, and the power of language, and so on. But it's still semantics.
What we actually have, regarldess of what we call it, still has to be discussed in detail, which is more what Obama and Clinton are doing.
Issues like when do we bomb and use military force, when do we talk to allies, to what extent, who are allies and who aren't, and a lot of the gray areas. They still have to be discussed regardless of what acronym you use.
September 13, 2007 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's an acronym. It's semantics. Calling it a different name doesn't change anything.
You could call it the "do-wap-shoo-wap" and the same issues would remain on how to handle it.
You're getting too far into empty semantics.
September 13, 2007 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
New login? How many accounts do you have? I see your other account is also active.
Anywhoo, you're the stealth right winger here, as I've mentioned is easily verifiable by Googling "Terry Hallinan" + Chevron. A true Republican vested interest.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jun/13/presidential_politics#comment-257861
The only reason you're fluffing Edwards is because he's a distant 3rd in the polls and presently appears unelectable. Exactly as I predicted you would some weeks ago. Should he by some miracle become popular, you'll start dumping on him.
September 13, 2007 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Semantics? Well, I might use another term for it which is "framing" and when the Republicans and Democrats frame the issue as the GWOT that means something very different and focuses the public and policy makers on war, military solutions to political problems, hating muslims instead of finding and apprehending the dangerous, extremist criminal element responsible for terrorist violence. Framing issues is an essential part of winning political strategy and reframing this issue is essential not only to getting control of the issue politically but on focusing the real and substantive actions of government on effectively fighting this threat instead of looking for boogeymen under every bed, trampling our constitution in the name of the GWOT, violating the civil and human rights of those we deal with at home and abroad and so forth. It isn't empty semantics at all.
September 13, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's interesting. When I Google "Terry Hallinan" I find a long and distinguished history of anti-war and civil liberties activity. I also find mention of one Terry Halliman's son being a designer of energy plants. Perhaps your search including Chevron is confusing Junior with Senior. If so, I think you'll be owing Mr. Hallinan Sr. (and maybe Junior, too) an apology.
September 13, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
The candidate whose chief strategist hangs a sign in his/her office reading
IT'S THE CONSTITUTION, STUPID
will have my vote and my support.
September 13, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly--it's a major breakthrough.
The US in an endless war permits all sorts of injustices and excesses, from domestic suppression to bloated military budgets, while a country at peace, with intelligence and policing policies to defend against terrorists, allows us to focus on more important quality-of-life matters.
Kerry understood this and tried to address it in 2004, but failed in his usual foppish way. Hopefully Edwards can do better.
A nit-pick: Unfortunately we will always have a commander-in-chief as long as we have a standing military. The term is not war-dependent. Why do we need a standing military, you might ask? Good question. Answer: Money.
September 13, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
GWOT is more than just simple language or semantics. It is part of a technique, similar to the ones used by cult leaders, called by cult expert Robert J. Lifton "loading the language" The technique uses a kind of Pavlovian thought-stopper, in which an emotional response is conditioned into cult followers by by melding it with a simplistic word or phrase. The purpose is to condition the followers to not question or follow rational lines of thought, by letting only cult-approved thoughts enter the mind.
Lifton studied the communist Chinese brainwashing techniques, and later cults here in the US. The techniques are not all that dissimilar to those being used by leaders of the Christian right. There are several other techniques on the list that are worth a good look, too.
September 13, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress doesn't have to repeal Iraq. All it has to do is stop funding it.
September 13, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone who thinks it doesn't matter what you call things, vide Orwell and Nunberg.
September 13, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The argument that "it's just semantics" is silly.
The method these guys use to "create their own reality" is nothing BUT semantics*, with the Mighty Wurlitzer there to propagate the new line when needed, and the various winger attack dogs there to attack anyone who doesn't repeat the "right" shibboleths.
Edwards is right to focus on this, and kudos to him for doing it.
* Noting chigger's comment above, I hasten to add "semantics as it is understood by the layperson."
September 13, 2007 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obviously not that simple.
Defunding the war is a harsh way to end it and creates a major rift in our government. In order to do that there has to be overwhelming support, not merely to end the war, but specifically to go as far as defundung it.
That's necessary to overcome other parliamentary tactics, such as filibustering other spending bills as retaliation, and so on.
The public seems to be getting there, but Senate Republicans are lagging way behind public opinion, moderates are teetering on the fence, and left Dems don't have the votes to simply defund it presently.
So it's not that simple.
September 13, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now we're not supposed to have a standing military? Talk about goofy theories. It figures that would get uprated by our resident Stealth Republicans.
September 13, 2007 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obviously not that simple.
If it's so obvious, why is it that only you can see it?
In order to do that there has to be overwhelming support, not merely to end the war, but specifically to go as far as defundung it.
You have just made the argument to allow the President to defund it. Pass a funding bill with time limits, let him veto it, and viola! defunding by Mr. Bush!
Dems don't have the votes to simply defund it presently. So it's not that simple.
Yah, actually, it is. See paragraph above.
September 13, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's the Republicans themselves who are most adept at hiding their own guilt by accusing their opponents of the same crime, and doing it first. That would make you a...?
September 13, 2007 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
:-) Ok, lambert, I accept the correction.
May I add a couple of thought-stoppers to the GWOT list?
You're with us or against us;
Support the troops;
Love it or leave it;
Axis of evil;
Any sentence that includes "Islamo-fascism";
Statements using sports analogies;
War.
I'm sure you all can think of more. It goes beyond bumper stickers when it is incorporated into official State (cult) doctrine, or if it's spouted by spokespersons for the "State", say for instance, by Paul Harvey, Pat Robertson, Lou Dobson, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh. Take "Support our troops": when you see that, does it hypnotize you, stop you from thinking, replying? For Pete's sake, who doesn't support the troops? But when you see that, does it stop you in your tracks? There were seven troops who authored an article that was published in the NY Times VERY recently who tried to blast us loose from that kind of hypnosis, and now this week two--or is it three--are dead.
I find that many thought-stoppers are stated as black and white thinking, and imply a demand for purity--differentiating the pure from the impure--another characteristic of cults, according to Lifton. Interestingly enough, cults demand purity of cult followers and of the "enemy" outside the cult, but "purity" is not demanded of the cult leaders themselves,as they assume the end justifies the means. Remember Rush's brush with the authorities as he returned from the Bahamas, was it, without a prescription for the drugs in his possession? Lying? Not a problem, if it's coming from cult leaders or cult spokespersons. Got it? Enough for now. I'm not going into dispensing of existence right now.
September 13, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mother has told me many times about a friend who sent her husband the song "I'll be Home for Christmas" during WWII. Even during WWII, people could sing "I'll be Home for Christmas". So I suggest we offer the "I'll be Home for Christmas" bill promising that every last troop in Iraq will be home before Christmas of 2008. I expect it to be a hugely popular bill with the public if not with the neocons in both parties.
September 13, 2007 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
riiiight. and they know, that I know, that you know, they we know, that they know...
September 13, 2007 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you understand what you are trying to convey.
September 13, 2007 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the most interesting idea I've heard today. (I live a sheltered life.) I plan to follow this suggestion, and I urge that fellow TPM Café habitués do the same thing.
Some suggested talking points:
Copyright the phrase...you'll make millions. <grin></grin>
aMike
September 13, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Afghanistan wasn't a "war" in many conventional military aspects? Obviously most people now recognize that political solutions are paramount. And that "war" is a rather simplistic term. I don't think any Democratic President will continue using the term past election.
But now isn't the time for silly semantic debates. Hillary and Obama have avoided a semantic pissing competition by dealing with the meat of the issue, not the packaging. At least their disagreements are on substance.
Edwards is attempting to create an issue for himself and get in late to the FP debate. So he's picked this semantic issue.
And he's done so because a lot of immature blog readers tend also to focus on these frivolities, such as some of the Dkos types, and that's his one strong area besides his domesitc economic message, which does have popular appeal, but leaves him out of the FP debate.
September 13, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I see the Democratic establishment is relentlessly stuck in its "redefine the mission...change of course" ....
What a bunch of mush. Could you like write one declarative sentence Dems? Why is it the signs in my neighborhood do it so well: "Support the troops, bring them home". Why can't you just say "Bring the troops home". "Redefine the mission"? Is it possible to come up with a more spineless phrase?
September 13, 2007 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Different one. That's the old DA of San Francisco.
Like I said, add chevron and geothermal. And our Terry Hallinan has already confirmed in other posts which one he is, and that I'm correctly attributing his other online fora posts to him. After all, he couldn't deny it, since he was discussing the same issues here, and had the same signature.
But thanks for chiming in. Next time try adding something to knee-jerk conjecture.
September 13, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A great idea.
Then Edwards could argue whether the do-wap-shoo-wap is really in fact the shooby-shooby-do-wap.
Btw, I don't have any problem losing "GWOT." I've always found it a rather unfortunate term.
But having said that, I don't think semantic arguments are a substitute for serious discussions of issues. The American people need to be convinced on issues, not acronyms.
An Edward's "gotcha" on GWOT is sleazy. I don't like that kind of manufactured issue by people seeking the spotlight.
September 13, 2007 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leg dog, knock yourself out.
September 13, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, bluebell (love the name, my favorite wildflower, btw), what you're saying, in effect, is that we should counter one thought-stopper with another. How about:
Taxus of evil;
Bush/Cheney
Shove it or heave it;
War on error.
Sure, WE can do that, but it looks juvenile if it's coming from a presidential candidat.
September 13, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think "Bring the Troops Home" is juvenile. "Redefine the mission" sounds like the kickoff theme for sales manager about to announce a reduction in compensation.
September 13, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, bluebell, didn't realize "Re-define the mission" was the issue, thought it was "GWOT" and the over-simplification of language and thinking by presidents and presidential candidates.
So, what you seem to be saying is that today's candidates should be stating their foreign relations plans using bumper sticker language. Yes, no? I've got no problem with candidates being more concise and clear about their message. But, I think it's easy to confuse that with thought-stoppers. And, I DON"T think it's enough for a candidate to be vague or imprecise about his/her plans by using only bumper sticker phrases. I want details, not vagueness.
September 13, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it would hurt candidates to summarize their positions on each policy with one sentence.
September 13, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jay-sus, here's another thought-stopper, from Bush's address to the nation tonight:
"...36 nations with troops on the ground today in Iraq..."
Could that be INDIVIDUALS from 36 nations who have enlisted in order to be granted US citizenship, if they live?
September 13, 2007 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
36 people from other nations are on the ground with troops in Iraq - mostly journalists, but why be choosy?
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 13, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bin Laden, a member of the Bush's business buddy family in Saudi Arabia, "engineered" an attack on the WTC and Pentagon, hoping to instill terror in the hearts of Americans. George Bush, a member of the Bush family of which we speak, has done his part in this terror campaign, by continuing to try to instill terror in the hearts of Americans. It's good to have good business buddies.
Joking aside, if the 9/11 attacks had been treated as horrible crimes by international criminals, we would not now be terrorized, and bin Laden would have failed in his plan. And, please don't BS me by claiming that Americans are not terrorized. Is there anything else that would persuade us to give up so many of our Constitutional rights, to reelect a certified idiot as president in 2004, to support the continued slaughter and maiming of Americans in Iraq, to support the spending of trillions of dollars much needed for domestic problems to continue that slaughter, etc.?
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 13, 2007 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
War on poverty. War on drugs. War on illiteracy. War on cancer. War is handy as a term for campaigns in many areas of human endeavor wherein military war is not proposed or applicable. Take your pick as to whether such usage of war is using the word as pure metaphor or as a separate sense of the word that has come into its own over time.
Of course there is moral, spiritual, intellectual, and civic war against terror. War on terror and global war on terror, when used in a strictly military sense, are misnomers. These misnomers, more frequently global war on terror, are intended by the Bush administration to confuse the public, Congress, and even the military for purposes of persuasion. No military measure appropriate to be taken against terror operations and their perpetrators depends upon such a misnomer or the resulting misconceptions.