Dean's World

I always dread being pulled into cross-blog Question & Answer challenges, because too often they just devolve into ego clashes. Indeed, when I read this set of questions from Kevin Drum, it looks ripe for flame-bait. But maybe that's only in my head. Thus in the hopes that I'm wrong, I'll answer. Before doing so, I'll just carp in passing that once again, if you support the basic direction and goal of our foreign policy in the Middle East, this makes you a "conservative." Why don't we use the word "Hawk" instead, so we aren't all lumped in with a single philosophy? Anyway, here are the questions, and my answers:

1. Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?

To part 1: Yes.

To part 2: Moderately so, but very little has happened there that has surprised me or that I didn't think might possibly happen.

2. Shortly after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said publicly that they thought the attacks were well-deserved retribution from God in response to moral decay — as personified by gays, feminists, the ACLU, and NOW. Do you worry that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party? Do you think President Bush has sufficiently distanced himself from them and their followers?

It is unfortunate that Kevin does not think to mention that the President and other prominent congressional Republicans roundly condemned Falwell and Robertson for that, and does not mention that both men apologized.

However, those comments did disturb me deeply. Nevertheless, it strikes me as no no less disturbing than the fact that hateful garbage-peddlers like Bill Maher and Michael Moore are increasingly considered the main water-carriers for the Democratic Party--and it disturbs me even more that, while Republicans were fairly inhesitant about condemning the likes of Robertson and Falwell when they said those outrageous things, still to this day relatively few leading Democrats have bothered to condemn the likes of Michael Moore, who said things at least as outrageous in the wake of 9/11--and since.

I would like to see the President distance himself a bit more than he has from Falwell; Robertson on the other hand is already fairly estranged from Bush. Still, I expect that both parties will always have their share of unsavory elements. It strikes me as indicative of the strength of a party (any party) when its prominent members are willing to upbraid its worst and most misbehaving members in public.

3. Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush's policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.

Yes it is one of my core concerns. You may ask as many specific questions on this subject as you wish. It is also my view that politics and diplomacy are arts of the possible, not the ideal. We are not in a position at the moment to force democracy on Saudi Arabia, and can only take a carrot-and-stick approach to them. Strategically, Pakistan is almost as difficult for we would have no easy way to continue our vital work in Afghanistan if Pakistan were to collapse into civil war. It is thus my sincere hope that the reforms in Iraq and Afghanistan (and maybe, just maybe, Palestine) will over the next generation make it easier for us to encourage other regimes in the region to follow suit--or, luckier still, that it might happen without any major intervention on our part at all.

4. On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region? Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and indeed if Iraq does not have a steady oil supply on which to base the beginnings of its new economy then our efforts to help that nation democratize itself will be greatly diminished.

Furthermore, had we left the mass-murdering butcher of Baghdad in charge of his oppressed people, ensuring the steady supply of oil from the Middle East would have been easier, not harder. Indeed, maintaining the status quo would have been easier on almost all fronts for the Bush administration, and would have made a steady supply of oil from the region far more certain.

Thus the answer is: I'm pretty sure the administration is concerned about oil because they aren't, after all, idiots. But it's self-evident from the Bush administration's actions that democracy is a higher goal for them.

I don't much care what's in that energy task force report, to be honest, but I wouldn't mind seeing it. I doubt there's anything in it that would shock me, but I could be surprised.

5. A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?

I'm curious to know just how substantial a portion that honestly is; from what I see, Christian conservatives make up anywhere from a quarter to a third of the Republican base, and my personal contacts with conservative Christian voters is that most of them are far less radical than they are so often portrayed as being, irrespective of what some of the biggest loudmouth firebrands among them might be quoted as saying. I think that if people like Kevin actually got out and made some conservative Christian friends, perhaps they'd lose their fear of most of them (as I, an atheist, already have).

I also note that Americans are prone to believe all sorts of things I consider batty, including astrology, crystal healing, and alien visitors. Indeed, I happen to know people who voted for Kerry and against Bush because they believe that Bush is part of a conspiracy involving the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission and the CIA to prevent friendly alien beings from inviting the Earth to join their Galactic Federation. No, I am not making this up, and yes I can give you links if you really want. I have relatives who actually believe this stuff.

I see no reason to think that Christian Rightists are the vast threat that they are made out to be, anymore than the Marxist elements within the Democratic coalition are such a threat that America is likely to become a Stalinist state if Democrats win the next election.

I see no reason for Republicans to consider purging those folks from their ranks unless they start actually advocating truly batty things--and while I'm sure you can find an idiotic quote or two from the likes of Ann Coulter, I don't see any mass movement toward batty things in regards to Israel in Republican ranks. When and if serious proposals are put before the Congress to rebuild the Temple of Solomon or forcibly convert Jews and Muslims to Christianity in the Holy Land, please alert me.

6. Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?

Yes to the first.

No to the second.

Ah, that was easy! More yes or no questions, please!

7) If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.

Man. What do you mean, "after?" As in, on February 1 we bug completely outta there? No way. I'd condemn that.

If you mean announcing plans for gradual withdrawl, possibly so, but I'd like to see the plan. Although I think completely leaving the region would be a mistake; I would hope we could negotiate basing rights there just as we have had for generations with South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. In any case I would hope that we will do whatever we can to help the new government establish its own stable security forces so that, within a year or so after the elections, we are no longer having to do most of the heavy lifting on security.

For the record, by the way, I completely expect violence to keep ratcheting upward in Iraq until election day. It's to be expected; the fascist and theocratic elements in Iraq and the neighboring regimes will do everything they can to try to stop the elections. Which is why the next two months are so critical.

8. Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie's crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?

Laurie Mylroie worries me a lot less than crackpot theorists like Michael Moore.

I don't know what to do about them except to argue with them, criticize them, and when they say hateful things, condemn them.

Kevin then says, "These aren't even the most embarrassing questions I could ask. But hey — that's just the moderate, civil-discourse-loving kind of guy that I am." Okay, well, let me ask a few only moderately embarassing counter counter-questions of Kevin and his fans, if they'd care to answer:

1) Considering that to date our forces in Iraq have suffered record low casualties for any operation of even remotely comparable scale, does it concern you at all that the Democratic Party increasingly looks like they're willing to talk tough, but as soon as the going gets tough their spines turn to jelly? Or that over 70% of our Reserve/National Guard troops supported the President in this election, making claims that the operation over there is "screwed up" look more than a little ignorant about what real wars look like? Or perhaps even opportunistic in embracing an equally-ignorant press?

2) In the wake of 9/11, Michael Moore angrily wrote that Al Qaeda had made a mistake and bombed the wrong people because most people in New York didn't vote for Bush. Are you in the least bit concerned that people like this are increasingly seen as the face of the Democratic Party?

3) Does it concern you that your party is no longer seen as either reliably anti-communist or reliably anti-fascist by so many people? Or that its members appear to be so quick to snear when a Republican speaks of caring about values like democracy and human rights? Or that it appears to a wide swath of fairly moderate Americans that, apparently, maintaining the status quo and doing little more than talking is Democrats' only apparent answer anymore to totalitarianism?

4) If it looked as if a tyrannical dictator were about to seize direct control of a third of the world's oil supply, would you favor any sort of military action to stop him?

5) A substantial portion of the Democratic Party, most especially the influential academic left, would like to see the state of Israel abolished and most of the Jews relocated elsewhere. What do you think should be done about such people, and what do you tell your Jewish friends about them?

6) Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?

7) If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.

8) Would you agree that people who accept Michael Moore's crackpot theories about 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too unseriously, and might be more than a tad paranoid about their own government? What do you think should be done with such people as the "Cheney Did It" lunatics?

9) How do you think America's human rights record stands in Iraq as compared to Saddam Hussein's human rights record in Iraq? Is it: a) A lot better, b) a little better, c) about the same, d) a little worse, or e) a lot worse?

10) How far are you willing to go to demonstrate your support for democracy and human rights? Do you believe we should a) take an essentially isolationist stance and rely on diplomacy-only, b) act only when the U.N. Security Council authorizes it, or c) act with or without U.N. blessings when we see fit? As a general rule, I mean.

11) Did you condemn recent unilateral French actions in the Ivory Coast? Do you think those recent French actions were a) better than U.S. actions in Iraq, b) worse than U.S. actions in Iraq, or c) about the same as U.S. actions in Iraq?

12) Finally, is there any chance we could get Political Animal to join Fighting Fusileers for Freedom in raising money to help volunteers in our armed forces distribute humanitarian aide in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Thanks for any responses, Kevin! Because that's just the kind of moderate, civil-discourse loving guy I am too. :-)

* Update * Citizen Smash, a veteran of the Iraq war, gives his own answers to Kevin's questions. Political scientist James Joyner, a former military man himself, also answers.