Monday, November 29 2004
WILSON, WAR, AND DEMOCRACY: Eighty-seven years ago President Woodrow Wilson delivered these words to a Joint Session of Congress asking for a declaration of war:

"It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance. But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts, for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other."

It's remarkable how poignant these words sound today. What's even more remarkable - not to mention ironic - is that Wilson's words now reflect a belief held by many Republicans (especially the current occupant of the White House) and eschewed by many Democrats.

Victor Davis Hanson's column Friday before last got me wondering just how much of this historical flip-flop is due to September 11 and how much of it is based on partisanship. You will not find a more forceful, articulate and passionate defender of the War in Iraq than Hanson. But would he be as unequivocal in his support of the war and the way it's been waged if it was the product of a Democratic President? Would any of us who supported the war from the beginning and still support it now be feeling differently today if a Democrat had been the one who led us into it?

Similarly, would Democrats who initially supported the War in Iraq (like Ken Pollack, Joe Biden and Thomas Friedman, to name a few) have turned so quickly against its prosecution were a Democratic administration in office instead of a Republican one? Would they still be arguing that the U.S. effort in Iraq was a quagmire borne of total incompetence or would they be focusing on the significant progress that has been made and the drive toward free, fair elections?

I don't know the answer to these questions. Clearly there are factions within each party (peaceniks on the left and paleos on the right) who would be against the War in Iraq under all but the most dire of circumstances. The rest (myself included) are open to persuasion and affected to various degrees by partisanship.

Speaking personally, based on the same evidence and arguments given at the time, I would have supported a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry administration taking the same action in Iraq. If I'm being honest, however, I probably would have been more critical of a few of the administration's decisions like the one to not crush the insurgents in Fallujah back in the spring.

The problem is that it's difficult for me to conceive any scenario (except in response to a catastrohpic attack) under in which a Democratic President would have led the drive to invade Iraq. Most Democrats see that as a good thing, especially with the clarity of hindsight. It's not.

The primary justification for invading Iraq was that the regime represented a real and growing threat to U.S. national security which could no longer be tolerated after September 11. While the global intelligence upon which the decision was based turned out to be incomplete and in many cases wrong, the motives underlying the decision to take action were not.

Nor is the Bush administration's overarching policy vision that has evolved in the aftermath of September 11 (of which Iraq has now become a central part) that the spread of democracy is deeply entwined with America's (and the world's) long term security interests. And while that doesn't mean the U.S. will run around the globe trying to impose democracy everywhere at the point of the gun, the President has also made clear that force may be required - and used - under the appropriate circumstances.

Put simplistically, President Bush has firmly embraced the idea that freedom leads to peace. Clearly Woodrow Wilson, who had spent years keeping America neutral in the face of German aggression, had something similar in mind on the eve of war in 1917 when he suggested to Congress that "such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free."

It's not surprising that many Democrats were against the invasion of Iraq and that more and more have turned against it as time, costs, and casualties have worn on. What is surprising is their continuing lack of enthusiasm in recognizing that 50 million people have been liberated in the last three years, their calculated indifference toward the recent elections in Afghanistan and their inability to wholeheartedly get behind supporting freedom and success in Iraq.

The Democrats' reaction to the Bush administration's policies exist in three parts. One part is procedural (our acting 'unilaterally'), one part is political (not wanting to credit your opponent), and one part is decidedly personal (a hatred of George W. Bush).

Taken together, however, the unfortunate reality is that by their reaction the Democrats have not only lost ground to Bush on the issue of national security, they've also ceded the ground of championing democracy and human rights around the globe. Lastly, and perhaps most ironically, in the process they've placed themselves on the side of the status quo of tyranny and oppression doled out by the likes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. I'm not sure that 's a legacy Woodrow Wilson would be proud of. - T. Bevan 9:30 am Link | Email | Send to a Friend