Winning the war, one person at a time

-->

Many in the Bush-based community suggest that anti-war progressives are against the establishment of a democratic Iraq. Of course, this is hogwash (and simplistic hogwash to boot).

If anything, progressives believe that there should be more to American foreign policy than just, "Excuse me, we're going to blow up your house. Now here's some money -- go build a new one."

If anything, a core conviction of progressives used to be the fight against tyranny and for the growth of democracy:

[Throughout the 1950s] support for a U.S.-led campaign to defeat Third World communism through economic development and social justice remained central to anti-totalitarian liberalism...

• Addressing an ADA meeting in 1952, Democratic Senator Brien McMahon of Connecticut called for an "army" of young Americans to travel to the Third World as "missionaries of democracy."

• In 1955, the ADA called for doubling U.S. aid to the Third World, to blunt "the main thrust of communist expansion" and to "help those countries provide the reality of freedom and make an actual start toward economic betterment."

• When Kennedy took office, he proposed the Alliance for Progress, a $20 billion Marshall Plan for Latin America.

• And, answering McMahon's call, he launched the Peace Corps, an opportunity for young Americans to participate "in the great common task of bringing to man that decent way of life which is the foundation of freedom and a condition of peace."

I'm for more of that and you would be too, if you thought about it and looked at this excerpt of a video called Voices of Iraq.

Who doesn't want to promote democracy over tyranny?

Yet, current US policy seems bound to do just that.

In the 1940's and 50's Republicans were content to cut taxes and balance the budget in the face of the challenges abroad. Today, Republicans want to cut taxes, shrink the government and fight tyranny abroad...sort of.

Fact is, the Republicans havena't changed much in the last 60 years -- they still want to cut taxes first and fund the important work of national defense and nation-building second. Our troops are sent into battle in insufficient numbers, without proper intelligence or even adequate armor. Expecting to be met as liberators, we are tied down instead, being forced to take on the role of occupiers. The Iraqi peoples' irrepressible urge for freedom is being worn down by our inability to overcome the insurgents and give Iraq back to the Iraqis. The important work of nation-building is given lip-service and not much else.

Bush and Rumsfeld expected our troops to be warriors and nation-builders. As a result, and despite the valiant efforts of our fighting forces, the results on both counts have been a disappointment.

But we can do better. It isn't right to blow up their country and then give them some money to rebuild it. We need a more determined and sustained effort at nation-building. It'll cost money. It'll require a change in focus. For starters we ought to take nation-building away from the Defense Department and put it where it belongs -- in the State Department or, if we're really serious about promoting democracy in the Middle East, create a cabinet level department tasked with getting it done right.

What do you think?