Joseph Lieberman’s op-ed column in today’s Wall Street Journal is an interesting look at how he views Democratic foreign policy.

Unfortunately, his view isn’t shared by, well, most Democrats.  And Lieberman’s tone-deaf, comprehension-challenged screed offers a telling glimpse of the alternate reality in which he currently orbits.

Lieberman waxes nostalgic over the foreign policy of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.  However, the world was markedly different then.  Weapons of mass destruction weren’t widely available, and there really were no  countries that could match America's technological development and trained manpower.

The United States could afford to be more pro-active in international involvement, because we were the undisputed world leader in many respects.  Even so, there were some unmitigated foreign “policy” disasters during this time, most notably the Bay of Pigs invasion.  (I suppose that’s an example of the glorious foreign activism Lieberman would have us undertake against our enemies.)

When Lieberman discusses the shift in Democratic foreign policy in the 1970s and 1980s, he conveniently omits the fact that international opinion had shifted against the United States engaging in active military intervention.  The deaths of 2 million Vietnamese during the Vietnam War were probably a large contributor to this shift.

Of course, the world was a very different place then, too.  The Soviet Union was looking to propagate Communism wherever it could.  Given the military size and strength the USSR possessed, it was much more delicate to go “freedom fighting” around the world, as the U.S. could have easily found itself up against a Soviet-armed opponent at any time.

Lieberman addresses the Clinton Administration as though it strode manfully throughout the world, squelching genocidal regimes and oppressive dictators with the patriotic broadsword of American military force.  The truth, which Lieberman is either too myopic to see or too dishonest to discuss, is that the only reason we got involved in Bosnia was because we were interested in selectively reclaiming our “world’s policeman” badge. 

Sen. John McCain, on the floor of the US Senate, on March 19, 2003:

<blockquote>We did not go into Bosnia because Mr. Milosevic had weapons of mass destruction. We did not go into Kosovo because ethnic Albanians or others were somehow a threat to the security of the United States. We entered into those conflicts because we could not stand by and watch innocent men, women, and children being slaughtered, raped, and "ethnically cleansed."</blockquote>

Even this statement shows more of our nation’s hypocrisy.  We stood by and did nothing while Rwandans were decimated in an ethnic war that was every bit as horrifying as Milosevic’s campaign in Bosnia.  One could spend a lot of time idly speculating as to why we ignored Rwanda – and most of those speculations are very ugly indeed.  

Lieberman says that 9/11 shook Bush from his “humble foreign policy” course.  Unfortunately, Bush shook himself – and us – into what Gen. Omar Bradley would have called "the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons." 

And now, we’ve destroyed so much of Iraq that we find ourselves having to rebuild an entire nation.  Yet, how can we credibly rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure when ours is in such abysmal condition that we can’t even provide for the veterans we sent on this fool’s errand in Iraq? 

It is absolutely mind-numbing how Lieberman can possibly talk about "total victory in Iraq."  What victory could he possibly be referencing?  We attacked a nation that posed no threat to American security and had no WMD capacity, destroyed its infrastructure, killed upwards of 1 million Iraqis – including lots of collateral damage – and inserted ourselves in a civil war that ultimately has increased Iran’s influence in the Middle East. 

Has anyone seen this movie before?  Here’s a hint:  It ran from 1968 to 1974, and it’s commemorated by a huge black wall in Washington, DC.

The United States supported Pervez Musharraf, who turned over the north of Pakistan to – you guessed it – Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.  Now, our REAL enemy is even stronger than it was before, because it’s been re-arming and recruiting virtually without opposition. 

Meanwhile, our "liberators" are taking fire from Muqtada al-Sadr’s armies, and “The Decider” has us paying $275 million per day for the privilege.  The Pentagon rolls out ex-generals to do interviews by the truckload, lies about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch, and pushes their pro-war propaganda.

Bush’s rapidly dwindling circle of sycophants, including CENTCOM Gen. David Petraeus, tries to explain how our "surge" isn’t really just a permanent troop escalation, while Dick "Mr. Deferment" Cheney crows about sending our battalions into their fourth and fifth tours of duty in a nation that clearly doesn’t want our presence.  At least Westmoreland didn’t lie about needing more troops for extended tours in Vietnam.

And now, Lieberman has the gall to criticize Barack Obama, who would have us talk with our enemies.  Lieberman says this means we would have "embraced our worst enemies".  I know this is probably difficult for someone who has spent so much time swerving around the truth on the Straight Talk Express, but Obama has never suggested any sort of "embrace". 

<strong>Meeting with someone – with or without preconditions – and laying out your position is not a sign of weakness. </strong> What’s truly weak is saying, "We can’t recognize your existence until you show you’re willing to embrace the principles we’ve set for you."  If that’s the only way we can get things done in the world, we’re in big trouble.

Even Israel recognizes this – which is why they’ve begun talking directly with Hamas, as well as Syria. 

The fact that Lieberman doesn't get this means he never did understand America’s true moral strength, and why this approach is needed now more than ever.  The world is much more complicated now than it was in the 1940s and 1950s.  Uncle Sam can’t stride onto the international stage, tilt his hat, put his hands on his hips to reveal his gun belt and six-shooters, and assume everyone will fall into line.  America isn’t the world’s policeman anymore – because people don’t want us to be.  It’s not about our view of the world, it’s about the international community, and whether we want to sit at the adults’ table or kick our feet in a petulant tantrum at the kids’ table.

True diplomacy comes from using the velvet glove, and only balling up the iron fist inside of it when necessary.  Kennedy didn’t talk with Castro – he tried to have him assassinated.  How’d that work out, Senator Lieberman?  Then, in the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy used front- and back-channel diplomacy with Khrushchev.  I’d say those thirteen days worked out just a little better, with just a little more at stake.

And Reagan never met with Khomeini, but he certainly did negotiate for the release of our hostages in 1980 – said release timed to coincide with his inauguration, of course.  I’ll not even go into the Iran-Contra nightmare, except to say that if Iran is in any sort of military engagement any time soon, they’re likely to be firing bullets and brandishing weapons that we supplied them.  

Joe Lieberman thinks we should be using the same foreign policy ideas that we used back during World War II.  The rest of the world has moved on, evolved, and changed dramatically since 1945, and the international playing field requires an American foreign policy that recognizes much more than just America’s foreign policy preferences.  Obama advocates the idea that America doesn’t have to flaunt its military might to be influential around the world, which seems inherently logical.

Lieberman wants us to imperiously ignore anyone who doesn’t toe our red, white and blue line.  We’ve tried that approach for some time now, and it’s failed miserably.  Lieberman’s still interested in that approach, so he can stay aligned with George Bush, John McCain, the Republicans, and the mid-20th century foreign policy dogma.

The New London Day retracted its 2006 endorsement of Sen. Lieberman thusly:

<blockquote>When The Day endorsed Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman for re-election in November 2006 it was supporting a candidate who demonstrated a history of pragmatic leadership and a willingness to seek bipartisan solutions.

We wonder what happened to that senator.  While Sen. Lieberman remains experienced, he is no longer even-handedly principled.</blockquote>

Well, of course he's neither even-handed nor principled.  That's what happens when you swerve to the right.