No "Rift" Among Democrats on War in Iraq

The recent defeat of Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic Primary for U.S. Senator from Connecticut has highlighted what is being described as a "rift" in the Democratic Party. This is simply not so.

What has been brought to light, however, is a burgeoning and increasingly organized anti-war movement. It has been reported that 30,000 voters who were previously unregistered or registered as independents re-registered as Democrats for this election. CNN reports the turnout for this race as 43%, a record, smashing the previous 39% turnout for the 1970 Democratic primary.

What is being lost in the frenzy over Lieberman's defeat is the difference between having voted for the war and supporting the administration's policies in prosecuting the war in Iraq (and elsewhere).

No matter how one feels about the decision to go to war in Iraq. Whether you believed at the time that it was necessary and the right thing to do, or if you believed we were attacking a country under false pretenses to meet ends decided long before September 11 ever happened, should not be seen as defining your position regarding our nation's current involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I happen to fall into the latter camp. But, I must admit having been an ardent supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1991, and also supported our intervention in Afghanistan immediately after September 11. Admittedly not a complete pacifist, I believe it is entirely consistent to now criticize how our country has chosen to conduct these actions.

In 1991, we were all introduced to the "Powell Doctrine," which requries that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged. This doctrine was seen as the antithesis of the manner in which the United States conducted the war in Vietnam, and, ironically, the manner in which we have prosecuted the second war in Iraq.

Here we are, embroiled in a conflict where there was no clear risk to national security by the intended target, where the force used was so underwhelming that chaos ensued as we "liberated" Baghdad, and we were powerless to stop it, where support for the campaign was not ensured, and where there was no, and three and one half years into the campaign, there is still no exit strategy.

Whether one believed in the Powell Doctrine, or not, the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" as utilized in Iraq can legitimately be viewed as an abject failure. In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was clear to anyone who was paying attention that "victory" would only be achieved through massive, lengthy occupation, reconstruction and education applied to a resistant populace. We went into Iraq utterly unprepared for that.

It is not unpatriotic to acknowledge that failure, whether you supported the initial action, or not. Democrats nationwide may have been more split at the point of decision than they are now in recognizing that another path must be chosen. The very notion that questioning the course we are on now is akin to "cutting and running" is absurd, and being more and more recognized as such. What, I ask, is the administration's plan for the alternative? All that seems to be on the table is an interminable occupation that will continue to drain our ability to respond to other, real, threats to our nation.

An open debate on where to go from here is healthy for the nation, and healthy for the Democratic party. Perhaps Lieberman's main fault is not having recognized the need for that debate and dialogue in his campaign until it was too late to stem the rising Lamont tide in Connecticut.

Whatever your party affiliation, questioning our continuing policy in Iraq is the most patriotic thing we can do. This is not, and never has been a nation built upon a population that blindly follows their leaders. We vociferously debate and question our leadership, and force them to defend their policies to our satisfaction, or we vote them out. Thus is our duty as citizens, no less. We have the right to sit on the sidelines and blindly trust our leaders, too. But then, we lose the credibility to complain about what we got.

That ain't no rift. That's democracy, baby!