1) You were an early opponent of invading Iraq -- speaking out on the issue in September 2002. What were your reasons for caution on Iraq?
Actually I spoke out on this before September 2002, although the Washington Post article I wrote in that month was one of the first major pieces warning that the real issue was not WMD's, but impending terrorism and the lack of an exit strategy. It has been my strong position for many years that the US should not become an occupying power in that part of the world, with its constant, multi-polar turmoil.
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but the world is filled with tyrants. His regime in Iraq was already well contained, and we had greater issues to face after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Importantly the regime in Iraq posed no direct threat to the United States - there were no active terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. Now, we are in a war where our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept our presence.
2) Given that we're in Iraq now, what would be the essential elements of a sound strategy to extricate ourselves?
We need to get out of Iraq, but we need to leave in a more responsible way than when we entered. This does not mean that we should be there for a long period of time. We must pressure this Administration to say, unequivocally, that the US has no long term aspirations for occupying Iraq. We should consult with the other countries in the region and bring them into the process - after all, they are going to be very much in the process once we leave.
3) Aside from the specific situation in Iraq, what would you say is your overall view on when it is appropriate to use U.S. military force? What sorts of situations demand U.S. intervention, and what don't?
The only time it is appropriate to use U.S. military force is when inaction poses a direct threat to the United States or our interests.
I believe people in this country need to look very closely at the language this Administration has been using recently, on when it would be appropriate to use force. Last week they renewed their supposed doctrine of "pre-emptive war." Pre-emptive war is a far different thing than a pre-emptive attack on, say, a terrorist cell that is preparing to attack us. Iraq was a pre-emptive war - taking over a country by force when it was not threatening us. This is not the way the United States should be exporting its values.
4) You've spoken of the distinction between "free trade" and "fair trade." What sort of policy initiatives would you like the see the U.S. pursue in order to promote fair trade?
I'm not an economist, but I'm a frequent traveler, especially in Asia, and I did bring American businesses into Vietnam for more than two years. This gives me an appreciation of how some of these imbalances occur. In my view, free trade only exists when two countries that have comparative economic and governmental systems are involved - as, for the most part, we can see in our practices with western Europe. For the rest of it, adjustments should be made, unless there are other trade-offs (forgive the pun) that occur elsewhere in a relationship. We are in a situation where workers are losing jobs because of unfair trade practices from foreign governments, and we cannot and should not allow these practices to continue. The first place I would look would be the protections available to our industries in our existing trade laws. We should make it clear to foreign governments that we will not allow them to operate outside of established international trade law to gain an advantage over U.S. companies. Beyond that, I believe it would be fair to re-examine NAFTA and other acts to try and rebalance the playing field.
Ed note: Interview questions from GregP. We're posting from Jim Webb's account this evening.
Donate Online via ActBlue
