Sunday evening, Jay Footlik spoke to the
Moraine Township Democrats. Jay is a principal in
RSLB Partners, a Washington, DC-based consulting firm (that incidentally needs to fix the link to the index page of its website). He served as a Special Assistant to President Clinton in the White House Office of Public Liaison and spent four years in Israel, working on a variety of projects related to the peace process, and as a consultant in the political, non-profit and business arenas. Jay was also a vice president at Ruder-Finn, a DC communications and public relations firm.
My perspective on the discussion is below the fold:
Jay talked about the political aspect of the Bush Administration's foreign policy and how that has affected war and peace in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions. He believes that it is a mistake for Democrats to talk about Iraq as an issue in and by itself. The issue is far larger and the mess is already created, so now we have to deal with it. He thinks we should talk about how 6 years of pursuing a tough-talking, but short on firm and decisive action, foreign policy has left the United States with diminished influence and ability to build coalitions required to be effective as the world's sole superpower.
For all their talk about the "axis of evil" (and Jay agrees with the term), the Bush administration has done little to diminish its influence. Jay pointed out that Bush took down the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, but all that means is that we have taken away the two largest enemies of Iran allowing them to build their nuclear program and influence in the regions. This newly emboldened Iran has been free to miss deadlines in international controls of its nuclear program and is now thumbing its nose at the latest proposed agreement. Jay also offered the example of Bush's handling of Syria as illustration. The Syria Accountability Act passed Congress overwhelmingly, he said, and sanctions could have been imposed thereunder, but all Bush did was impose the lightest and most meaningless sanctions including one that refuses over flight privileges for Syrian airlines that don't use them anyway. For all the tough national security talk out of the Bush Administration, it has left Iran and Syria to their own devices with little challenge. We are simply not safer or more secure today because of Bush's policies.
That part of the discussion reminded me of the policy brief on China's soft power written by Joshua Kurlantzick, Visiting Scholar, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wherein Kurlantzick argued that Bush's policy toward China is leaving them free to influence emerging countries in its region and around the world toward a totalitarian form of capitalism. Bush's foreign policy seems to be resulting in exactly the opposite of what we say we want in the world. We are less secure with violent and inhumane regimes increasing their influence in the world.
Jay then moved to the Israel/Lebanon conflict and discussed how the Bush administration's Iraq policy that increased animosity in the Islamic world toward the west and emboldened Iran together with its neglect of mounting threats in the Middle East has contributed to this proxy war between Israel and Lebanon. As the world's only superpower and Israel's strongest ally, Jay believes that the US must be as involved as it can. He feels that we should have had an envoy stationed on the ground in the area at all times, and while that could not have guaranteed that the war would not have broken out or peace would come to the region, it would have helped with negotiations and the US would have a foothold from which to work. It would have prevented the need for Rice's emergency trip to the region which I'll add did not end up so good for her or anyone else.
What Jay is ultimately looking for is an international force with teeth that can disarm Hezbollah so it is no longer a threat to Israel or the civilians of Lebanon. He supports continued bombing of Lebanon by Israel, I guess after the 48 hour cease fire called after Saturday's bombing of civilians including children at Qana (UPDATE: Apparently, Israel listened to Jay because the cease fire now appears to be over). Afterward, he thinks an international coalition needs to shore up the Lebanese government to meet the needs of its citizens and provide central services that will help them restore normalcy.
After his initial comments, Jay took questions. One participant asked about the escalation risk. Jay responded by talking about moderate Arab regimes working with western countries to diminish the risk. I was left wondering if that is realistic any more. I'd been watching MSNBC for much of the afternoon and got the impression that we are at grave risk of losing the support of the moderate Arab countries.
During the Q&A, Jay added the Israeli perspective on the results of Bush's Iraq policy. Bush and Co. liked to tout the safety of Israel as a reason for invading Iraq, but to the Israelis, it only created nearby chaos and a new regime close to Iran with a new leader that speaks against Israel. He added that the mood in Israel is somber.
Another participant asked about creating our own oil embargo to force us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Jay talked about a project he is working on for a bi-partisan organization called SAFE and said that our energy policy for the past 30 years has not done enough to reduce our oil dependency. I've been saying for a long time that we should have listened to Carter back in 1979 when he told us we'd have to reduce our oil consumption. Imagine how far along we'd be if we heeded his warning rather than buying into the Reagan fake happy talk that we could use all the oil we wanted.
Jay spoke in no uncertain terms when it came to discussing the Democratic history of supporting a secure Israel. He pointed out that it was Democratic Presidents from Carter to Clinton who brought the most security and peace to Israel, including lasting peace accords with Egypt and Jordan. (I fear those agreements could be ruined in this war.) We will be strengthening Israel by electing a Democratic Congress in 2006 and Democratic President in 2008 because we need leadership that will listen to divergent opinions and engage in diplomacy.
I agreed with Jay on his criticism of the Bush administration's neglect of the region and the effect of the Iraq war and lack of tough action to support all the tough talk. I also agreed that Democrats can do a better job on foreign policy and truly make the world a safer place. I am skeptical that the international force of which he spoke is possible now with all the killing, bitterness and animosity. Hezbollah and Hamas positioned themselves in the region as not only terrorists, but providers of humanitarian aid to refugees, the sick, the poor and otherwise needy. That aid was a major component in their increased influence and power in the region. There is going to be a huge humanitarian crisis when the bombing and shooting is over and there seems to be little will on the part of current American leaders to provide it. George Lakoff recently discussed the competencies of the Bush Administration on Kos and in his post pointed out that conservatives do not believe as a matter of political philosophy and national vision that humanitarian aid should ever be provided as government's role is only to provide security and maintain a free marketplace. There also doesn't ever seem to be will on the part of the international community to provide such aid in the amounts and over the long time periods necessary to create a sphere of non-American western influence. So, how do we prevent Hezbollah or Hamas or their successors from again using the great unmet needs in the region to increase their power?
I have a few more questions. How can the US scrape together an international coalition at this late hour and in this climate of mistrust? How can we prevent this situation from only strengthening Hezbollah and Hamas and widening the abyss between the Islamic world and the west? How can this war end in any kind of normalcy for decades to come? Why can't we put more money toward humanitarian efforts which win the peace in the long run? How can we ever say that war will bring us to peace? It never has before and don't give me WWII because it was the aftermath that created the peace, the Marshall Plan and increased commerce with our former adversaries and probably more commonality to begin with that created the lasting peace after WWII. Does any of that seem likely here? And what about all the dead, maimed and orphaned? Don't they ever matter?