http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=535&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=84b7b4302d413acc720c7507ea40383d
At a major gathering of progressives to discuss foreign policy and national security, there was strong agreement Bush must go and liberal policy must return. 
By Stewart Nusbaumer

Before effective action, there must be serious, sustained thought. American progressives see little thinking in the Bush Administration, but they do see a lot of ineffective bad actions. This was evident at a conference titled "New American Strategies for Security and Peace," where more than 500 policy experts, former government officials, elected representatives, and political activists ripped into the Bush Administration. 

"We had to cut registration off, there were too many who wanted to attend," said Anna Soellner of the Center for American Progress, which with the American Prospect magazine and The Century Foundation sponsored the conference.

For two days at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington DC there was harsh criticism of the Bush Administration's policies and extensive presentations of alternative policies. The agenda focused on how to achieve peace in Iraq, how to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction worldwide, what steps to take to create domestic security, and what is the correct use of U.S. military force. There were no deep divisions of disagreement at the conference, just extensive agreement the Bush policies are damaging the reputation of America and are making our nation less secure and they must go. 

The list of political luminaries was extensive, including: Senators Joseph Biden and Hilary Clinton; Wesley Clark a Democratic presidential hopeful; former Clinton Administration officials Sandy Berger (National Security Advisor); Richard Holbrooke (Ambassador to U.N); William Perry (Secretary of Defense); and even a prominent Republican, Senator Chuck Hegel. 

Keynote Speaker: Wesley Clark

Ted Sorrensen, a former aid to President Kennedy, noted liberals have a honorable history in foreign policy -- Woodrow Wilson's 14 Point Plan, FDR's Good Neighbor Policy, Harry Truman championing the U.N, John Kennedy avoiding war in the Cuban missile crisis. Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark went on to discuss more recent history. 

Referring to the "Dream Team" -- remember the Dream Team? -- "their policies have been wrong, horribly, terribly wrong." Setting the tone for the conference, Clark pounded away on the arrogance and unilateralism of the Bush Administration and its refusal to engage in serious coalition building. In his sharpest attack yet of the Bush foreign policy, the retired general said Bush has manipulated and distorted facts. "They don' t start with policy and shape a policy, but start with policy and shape the facts." And the administration has showed disdain for allies and our own principles. "We are not a nation that starts wars without just cause," which produced moans of uncomfortable agreement in the audience. 

"The losses we suffered on 9/11 -- as tragic as they were -- have been magnified by the losses we've suffered since," the retired general said, "the loss of allied support; the loss of moral authority; the loss of respect, admiration, and esteem -- especially in the Islamic world."

In conclusion, Clark laid out three principles that should guide America:

"First, America needs to be guided again by our founding ideal of inclusiveness -- the core ingredient of any democracy. Second, we should be working to strengthen and use international institutions, beginning with the United Nations and NATO. The third principle is to ensure our armed forces retain the edge over any potential adversary."

From Iraq To Korea

Since 9/11 there has been a radical shift in American foreign policy, with the classic security model of deterrence, in force for more than 50 years, having largely disappeared. "Soft power," such as diplomacy and foreign aid and preferred market access, is greatly de-emphasized by the Bush Administration in favor of the instruments of "hard power," U.S. military force. This was referred to as the Bush Doctrine. 

Panelist Clyde Prestowitz, author of the best seller, Rogue Nation, noted it was George Bush who during the presidential campaign said that if we are a humble nation, then we will be respected; if we are arrogant, then they will be hated. Humbleness, Prestonwitz pointed out, requires the use of soft power, something the Bush Administration deplores. 

Sandy Burger, chairing the panel "Is America Safer?" said "Shock and Awe" failed to crush the Iraqis and "this shows the limits on U.S. military power." 

Running throughout this conference, although seldom stated explicitly, were lessons from the Vietnam War. Most important, the realization that a successful foreign policy requires the U.S. to proceed slowly when introducing military force, and when its troops are deployed, to join other nations in forming a multi-national force. Not only the failure of Vietnam, but the successes of Bosnia and Kosovo -- where U.S. forces were deployed in conjunction with other nations' forces -- peppered the speeches and replies to questions from the audience. 

Discussing the threat from weapons of mass destruction, "A Critical Challenge: Stopping the Spread of the Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons," a dark pessimism settled over the panelists. The problems of North Korea, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the danger of "dirty" radiation bombs and chemical weapons all defy easy resolution, possibly any resolution. There seemed to be an almost inevitability of a future holocaust. 

From The Past To The Future

Forty years ago, French President Charles de Gaulle took the word of an emissary of the president of the United States that there were nuclear weapons in Cuba, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, told the audience. "Would anyone take the word of a Bush emissary that al Qaeda can make nuclear weapons?" 

Point well made. 

"As U.S. military power is at its zenith," Brzezinski stressed, "our political standing in the world is at a nadir."

According to Brzezinski, a favorite phrase in this administration is, "he who is not with us is against us." The phrase, he continued, was popularized by Lenin, when the communist leader was attacking social democrats!

The final speaker of the evening was Senator Joseph Biden, giving a Washington insider perspective: "This is the most ideological administration in U.S. history."

Biden continued the theme that Bush squandered opportunities after 9/11, squandered the opportunity to ask Americans to make sacrifices and squandered the opportunity to craft a national security policy that united the world. Blinded by U.S. power, this administration was blind to the opportunities that existed. 

Like the word "liberal," the phrase "nation building" was seldom used at the conference, possibly because of a nasty residue of hesitation from the past. Not for Senator Biden. "Nation building will be essential to our security for years to come. If we don't want to do the post-conflict, they we should reconsider doing the conflict."

The Senator concluded by saying that we have three options. Bring our troops home now, but suffer the strategic consequences; continue the present course, and pay the heavy financial and human costs; make Iraq the world's problem by handing authority over to the U.N. and Iraqis. The Senator favors the last option, and soon. 

Now What? 

"There were not really any new ideas that came out of this," said a woman standing on the Metro platform outside the hotel's conference hall. "They marketed it as alternative, it was really just anti-Bush. But that is good too!"

From the latest presidential candidate Wesley Clark to veteran Senator Joseph Biden, the message was America needs the sensible, respectful, and just liberal policies of our past. This was not a forum to reveal new ideas, not an opportunity to develop ideas, but a platform to voice a view of the world and America's position in that world which has broad consensus on the political left. The "New American Strategies for Security and Peace" conference did not present anything really new, it was informative and at times stimulating and certainly interesting, but its impact will be in solidifying a liberal foreign policy that has the potential to truly enhance our national security. 

Of course there were differences. Some participants favored nation building more than others, some speakers were more global than others. There were differences on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but all of these differences were overshadowed as speaker after speaker emphasized the urgent need to replace the Bush Administration. It was the Bush policies of unilateralism and the quick draw for military force that was the magnet cementing the consensus here. It was the deep desire for the United States to rejoin the international community as a partner for peace and conflict resolution that ignited participants. 

The headline, as I read in the San Francisco Chronicle and USA Today, and on the Associated Press wire, is presidential candidate Wesley Clark blames President George Bush for 9/11 intelligence failures. The more important story of this conference, although less catchy, is the political left has a clear alternative to the Bush foreign policy and national security strategy. The question now, will the Democrat candidate who squares off against George Bush embrace this progressive strategy? 

Stewart Nusbaumer is editor of Intervention Magazine.

Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2003