Edwards Foreign Policy: Hope for the Best

John Edwards takes his turn in Foreign Affairs, explaining his foreign policy and showing how it differs from that of President Bush and his rivals for the Democratic nomination. On the critically important questions of how to deal with Iraq, and how to respond to international crises, Edwards is aimless--saying one thing, and proposing to do the opposite. He calls the approach 'smart power,' but it sounds more like 'hope for the best.'

Edwards goes wrong early on:

This century's first test of our leadership arrived with terrible force on September 11, 2001. When the United States was attacked, the entire world stood with us. We could have pursued a broad policy of reengagement with the world, yet instead we squandered this broad support through a series of policies that drove away our friends and allies.

It's not that Edwards is wrong in valuing close relations with other nations; it is that this is entirely the wrong prism through which to view the September 11 attacks. The question was not whether we would use them to improve relations with allies and rivals; it was whether the nation would act to make sure that such an attack was not repeated. In just the 5th paragraph of this lengthy piece, Edwards makes us seriously question whether he has the judgment to fill the office he seeks.

In the next paragraph, he recasts history--crediting Ronald Reagan with building international respect for the US, and bringing down the USSR:

For 50 years, presidents from Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton built strong alliances and deepened the world's respect for us. We gained that respect by viewing our military strength not as an end in itself but as a means to protect a system of laws and institutions that gave hope to billions across the globe. In avoiding the temptation to rule as an empire, we hastened the fall of a corrupt and evil one in the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan was criticized bitterly by Democrats for provoking the USSR and dividing U.S. allies, allegedly leading to a diminished respect for the US abroad--echoing modern criticisms of George Bush. His pursuit of missile defense, the placement of Pershing missiles in Europe, the labeling of the USSR as an 'Evil Empire'--Democrats claimed that all these actions provoked the enemy, threatened relations with our allies, and would prolong the conflict with Communism. But if Edwards were running for president in 1984, he'd probably say the same thing of Reagan that he is saying of Bush today.

Most of the rest of Edwards' piece amounts to a collection of unfounded assertions and election slogans: 'the war on terror is a bumper sticker,' we've 'walked into the terrorists' trap,' Bush is pushing 'a policy of fear'--all stuff that we've heard many times before. Interestingly, Edwards compliments local law enforcement for breaking up plots like the attack planned at New York's JFK, but he doesn't compliment you know who for the prevention of any terror attacks in the US since 9/11.

This paragraph seems the best summary of Edwards' near-term plans:

We should begin our reengagement with the world by bringing an end to the Iraq war. Iraq's problems are deep and dangerous, but they cannot be solved by the U.S. military. For over a year, I have argued for an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 U.S. combat troops from Iraq, followed by an orderly and complete withdrawal of all combat troops. Once we are out of Iraq, the United States must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, a regional spillover of the civil war, or the establishment of an al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain quick-reaction forces in Kuwait and a significant naval presence in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some security capabilities in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the U.S. embassy and U.S. personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world--including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe--in working to secure Iraq's future. All of these measures will finally allow us to close this terrible chapter and move on to the broader challenges of the new century.

So get out of Iraq, leave a 'quick-reaction force' in Kuwait, a military garrison at the Embassy in Baghdad, and enough troops in the region 'to prevent a genocide.' Then commence a 'diplomatic offensive' in Europe and the region.