Update [2006-8-7 12:35:15 by kant]: After I typed this, I saw the diary about John Bolton had saying that Lebanese lives were somehow less valuable than Isareli lives. It is clear that Bolton is a charter member of the Axis of Ego. After Lamont wins the primary, stopping Bolton MUST be the next order of business.
[ORIGINAL POST]In recent days, I have read more and more articles and blogs about the Israeli government's desire to distance its interests from those of its neocon supporters in the US. It is also interesting to see Tom Friedman hammering Bush and his impact on our place in the world, calling for a rethink on Iraq and encouraging a dialogue with Syria. Meanwhile, the Axis of Ego (as I call them) Richard Perle, Newt Gingrich and Bill Kristol (with the implicit support of Cheney and Rumsfeld) are calling for WWIII, and trying to link the Lamont candidacy with a capitulationist "insurgency" here in the US.
As we move to establish a legitimate alternative foreign policy and to defeat the Axis of Ego (and their solipsistic philosophy of self-destruction) once and for all, it is helpful, I think, to keep in mind a few key themes.
Sure there are elements of the Democratic Party that are pacifists. But the Democrats are no-longer the party of Chicago '68. We have members of our team who were part of a team that negotiated Dayton, did Kosovo and (if you count Chris Hill) are working hard on Korea. I would bet that most of the people who will vote for Ned Lamont, also supported our policies in Bosnia and Kosovo. And most support Israel's right to defend itself.
Let the repubs have the foreign policy (and phoney bi-partisanship) of Lieberman and Cheney. We can be supportive of Israel's right to clean out Hezbollah and stop shipment of missiles from Iran through Syria to Lebanon. But a wider regional war (with Syria and Iran as the Neocons wish) is not the answer... and I think that the mainstream of Israeli politics sees this. We have not prepped for it, and we have not figured out what to do in Iraq.
If there is to be a bi-partisan foreign policy, it is with a Republican like Chuck Hagel. Hagel is speaking the right way. Islamic extremism is the main enemy, but let's fight it smart and the first step is figuring out a way to marginalize the neocon WWIII argument. WWIII implies a war between the west and all of islam. It is a false choice, and meant to coverup their big fuck up in Iraq. It is the choice of those who lump all Muslims together. (There are reports that prior to declaring war, Bush did not know the difference between Shiite and Sunni) We need to continue to encourage moderate and secular islam, and I would argue that our continued presence as an occupier in Iraq may undermine moderates in the region more than it bolsters them. It also depletes our treasury, bogs down our forces and uses this army in ways that it was neither trained nor intended. If Iraq is already in civil war, let's cut our losses, redeploy outside of Baghdad, focus on intelligence operations and support of our friends in Iraq and the region, kind of like we did in Afghanistan before Tora Bora.
That is the beginning of a foreign policy... and surprisingly, I think the Democrats are beginning to articulate it.