The Dem Alternative

Listen to some pundits on the news (any channel) discussing Iraq, and you will not wait long before hearing the pundit representing Bush's side complain that Democrats are only coplaining and not offering alternatives to apply to Iraq. (Actually, they're extending this line to everything- purpoting the "planless" Democrats are merely noisy irrelevants. Hard to understand that line- have they not tuned into any debates nor logged on to any websites wherein various plans from early education to foreign policy are discussed?)
In any event, E. J. Dionne Jr. has an important piece in today's WaPo opinion section. He discusses Yesterday, a manifesto that was put together by a group of Democratic foreign policy specialists organized by the Progressive Policy Institute. You can find that document here. The statement is the "first draft" of a plan on what to do in Iraq.

The document is important for many reasons. The group that signed it is made up of relatively hawkish Democrats who were sympathetic to an aggressive policy against Saddam Hussein and still believe that the Middle East and the world "are better off now that this barbaric dictator is gone." The statement was put together by the think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist group that has been highly critical of Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean and his antiwar views.

the document has much of what we've heard: while we supported an ousting of Hussein, the threat was less immenent that we were told; thus there was time to gather much more international backing. Had we had such backing, the situation now would be, no one can deny, much better. But the statement goes on, and lays out very well a vision:

"Instead of mobilizing our friends and isolating our enemies," the manifesto declares, "this administration is isolating the United States from the rest of the world, squandering the good will and alliances built up over decades by successive U.S. leaders. American military strength is at an all-time high, but our moral authority around the world is at an all-time low."

In proposing an alternative approach to foreign policy, the document calls for "progressive internationalism." It offers specific ideas on curbing weapons proliferation, improving homeland security and reorganizing the military for the new tasks it faces. Its authors identify with the policies of Harry Truman, who built strong international institutions to combat the threat of communism after World War II. The idea is that there is nothing "soft" about believing the United States needs friends.

"We see no contradiction between national strength and international cooperation," the authors declare. "We should make it more attractive for foreign leaders to build alliances with us in the world than to build electoral campaigns at home premised on anti-Americanism."

The authors endorse "a robust military presence in Iraq for as long as it takes to help that country achieve security and stability." But they argue that the United States should "not allow arrogance or ideology to stand in the way of forging a broad coalition to bear the burden of peacekeeping, governance and reconstruction in Iraq."

"The surest way to isolate America -- and call into being anti-American coalitions," they declare, "is to succumb to the imperial temptation and attempt to impose our will on others."

Very thoughtful...as is Dionne's commentary.