John Edwards is not your father’s antiwar candidate, although he would like you to think he is. So self-righteous is Mr. Edwards in denouncing the global war on terror as nothing more than a “bumper sticker” slogan, and chastising his political colleagues for not showing enough courage to vote against funding the troops in Iraq (the way he would show courage, no doubt, if he still had a vote in the U.S. Senate), that you might expect him show up at a rally on the Mall, grab some soldier’s military medals, and throw them over a wall in solidarity with the 1960s Left.
But poor John Edwards is about 30 years too late and a policy proposal short of being the genuine antiwar candidate he claims to be. The real question is: Would John Edwards end the war in Iraq if elected president of the United States? His own foreign-policy speech last month to the Council on Foreign Relations offered a very confused take on the subject.
“My plan calls on Congress to use its funding power to stop the surge and force an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops from Iraq, followed by an orderly and complete withdrawal of all combat troops in about a year,” said Edwards.
He should have added, “Well, sorta.” How else to bridge the gap between a policy of full withdrawal and one that, according to Edwards in that same speech, would “retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an al Qaeda safe haven”? Isn’t that what our troops are having difficulty doing already, even as President George W. Bush implements his “surge” strategy?
The dirty secret about the putative antiwar candidacy of John Edwards is that he isn’t exactly adamant about bringing the troops home. As he explained, “We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American embassy and other personnel.”
That hardly sounds like a complete withdrawal. Yet to satisfy the more rabid elements of his Leftist constituency, the troop levels that Edwards would maintain in those areas would have to be so anemic — and therefore, so vulnerable — that they are immediately overrun by the enemy, and those who remain would have to be airlifted out in an emergency Saigon-like evacuation.
To restore credibility and restore America’s moral leadership around the world, the antiwar Left and the antiwar media insist we need a president who will champion diplomacy over warfare and who will, by all means, denounce preventative military intervention. That is thinly veiled code for: Don’t bomb Iran unless Iran bombs us.
Here again, Edwards sounds a hawkish note that would confuse his staunchest antiwar supporters. “There are times when force is justified,” said Edwards. “To protect our vital national interests… to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors… to protect treaty allies and alliance commitments… to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons… and to prevent or stop genocide.”
By suggesting the use of military force as a means of prevention, Edwards narrows the gap between President Bush and himself.
During a recent interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Edwards’s senior adviser Joe Trippi bemoaned the fact that Democrats in Congress lack the courage to defund the war in Iraq. What he fails to recognize — and he’s not alone — is that what Democrats lack is not courage. It’s answers, particularly to the unforeseen possibilities that could arise in Iraq.
What if genocide breaks out? What if the civil war spills over? What if al Qaeda safe havens expand? By Senator Edwards’s own words from his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, he would justify force as a solution in each of these instances.
Yes, the American public is tired of this war, and yes, they want our men and women to come home. What they don’t know is how to get from point A to point B without making things worse. And so the perceived pressure on Congress to end this war by calling for a full withdrawal is without the intensity that so many analysts, strategists, pollsters and pundits would suggest. After all, if the intensity of support to end the war now was realized in the cross tabs, wouldn’t the majority have claimed victory by now?
Edwards and his fellow Democratic candidates would do well to pick up Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s posthumous book, Making War to Keep Peace. In a section with particular application to the current crisis in Iraq, Kirkpatrick dissected the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and described subsequent U.S. involvement with the Afghan resistance. That involvement ultimately led to a crushing Soviet defeat.
“The conflict was done, and it seemed appropriate to leave, so we did. Talks of maintaining a U.S. presence, of extending an occupation, or even of nation building were not seriously contemplated.”
Kirkpatrick continued: “Not long after the U.S. personnel left, fighting spread among the various warlords, ethnic groups, and factions in Afghanistan. The wars among these warlords and ethnic groups were bitter, characterized by personal violence among families, clans and groups. The long struggles further fractured an already fragile society, until the Taliban emerged as the strongest and most violent. Dogmatic and harsh, the intolerant Taliban moved ruthlessly to eliminate opponents and consolidate power. Their near-universal repression was far more onerous than anyone foresaw.”
But now we do see. And so do the Democrats in Congress and the Democrats running for president.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada), with his one-liners and political pot-shots, serves as a useful foil to the serious men and women in his party who know — even as Senator Edwards knows — that a complete withdrawal within a year’s time will surely circle back to using U.S. military force to prevent genocide, spillover, and safe havens.
In the quiet of the night, they know — I know they know — that defeat of the enemy, not the U.S. military, is the only answer. That takes courage.
— Karen Hanretty is a California-based commentator and strategist. She is the former communications director for the California Republican party, served as spokeswoman for Arnold Schwarzenegger during his 2003 campaign for governor, and regularly appears on Fox News.