07 March 2002
Democrats Backing the War Effort, by Senator Joe Lieberman
(From March 7 Wall Street Journal) (970)
(This column by U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (Democrat-Connecticut)
first appeared in The Wall Street Journal March 7 and is in the public
domain. No republication restrictions.)
DON'T DOUBT DEMS: THEY'RE BACKING THE WAR EFFORT
By Joe Lieberman
(The author is a Democratic senator from Connecticut, was his party's
vice presidential candidate in the 2000 elections.)
Since a few of my fellow Democrats raised questions last week about
the conduct of the war against terrorism and a few Republicans
challenged their patriotism, Americans may be worried that their
political leadership is dividing before their eyes. Worry not. We
remain united behind the president and the war against terrorism --
and, in fact, can grow even more united if we learn how to draw
strength from an occasional respectful disagreement. We all need to
appreciate better the difference between reasonable dissent and
partisan divisiveness. Those who were "disgusted" by Tom Daschle's
sensible questions about the war should recalibrate their outrage
meters. The last thing we need while at war is partisan
hyperventilation in the name of patriotism every time someone raises a
question. A better response would be to answer the questions and for
the White House to consult more with Congress. The Bush administration
has begun to do just that, and I hope they continue along this path as
the war proceeds.
The real issue is not whether we have a right to disagree, but what we
disagree about and how we express those disagreements. For example, I
disagree with those of my colleagues, including some Democrats, who
are already pressing for a plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan. We
need a victory strategy, not an exit strategy. Our military should
only start planning to leave the region when it has killed or captured
the last of the terrorist forces, and when peace has been secured
under Afghanistan's new national government.
At the same time, I take issue with the administration's unwillingness
to provide American forces for international peacekeeping duty in
Afghanistan. Leaving the country with a negligible security force at
such a vulnerable moment will make it harder for the new government of
Hamid Karzai to survive. If we fail now to commit to the long-term
stability of Central Asia, we may, in Churchill's words, snatch defeat
from the jaws of victory.
There should also be no doubt that we will pursue terrorists wherever
they may seek refuge.
In this case, I disagree with some of my fellow Democrats who complain
about what they view as expanding war goals. If we are serious about
eradicating this many-headed monster, we must be ready to root out al
Qaeda and other terrorist groups in the mountains of Afghanistan, in
Yemen, in Georgia, in the Philippines and wherever else they may seek
refuge. That's just what President Bush has proposed to do, and he's
right on target in his choice of targets. This is going to be a long
struggle against many enemies. Less than six months after the Sept. 11
attacks, our will to do what is necessary to protect our security must
not start wavering.
That certainly goes for Iraq, where we must deal decisively with the
threat to America posed by the world's most dangerous terrorist,
Saddam Hussein.
I am encouraged that President Bush appears to have turned the corner
on Iraq, and now seems committed to changing the regime in Baghdad.
When and how we accomplish that is up to our military and our
commander-in-chief. Congress should be consulted more on strategy
toward Iraq -- but we should also respect the president's need to
employ surprise, if necessary, in carrying out his plan.
It will be very expensive to execute all these facets of the war
against terrorism, but the Constitution makes it our solemn
responsibility -- and primary duty -- to provide for the common
defense. Some Democrats are challenging the president's proposal to
raise spending on our military by $48 billion next year. I disagree,
and would urge them to take a hard look at the current and future
needs of our armed forces, which will make clear that this increase is
imperative for our national security.
In fact, I would advocate even more strategic spending on defense --
because just one-fifth of all the new money the president is proposing
will add purchasing power to buy new weapons, modernize existing
systems and meet other critical needs. The longer we wait to transform
our military for the new world of high-tech, unconventional,
asymmetrical warfare, the more it will cost us down the road, in both
dollars and dangers.
A long-term victory against terrorism must include not just the use of
our military might but a broader engagement with the Muslim world,
specifically stepping up our support of the moderate Muslim majority
that seeks economic modernization and political freedom. While our
military drains the terrorist swamp, I would like to see the
administration focus more on seeding the wider garden.
Those are my opinions; each will probably draw criticism from some in
both political parties. That is okay because in a democracy -- even a
democracy fighting against vicious foes -- no person, policy, or party
should be granted immunity from dissent in the name of national unity.
After all, we are fighting this war to protect not just our security,
but our freedoms -- including our precious freedom of expression.
America is smart enough and strong enough to carry on a civil
discussion about this war while fighting it successfully. In fact, I'm
confident that such a conversation can and will help guide us to a
greater victory.
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
