‘Tough Doves’ find a voice in the Iraq debate

The LA Times’ Ron Brownstein, one Carpetbagger’s Top 5 favorite journalists, has a terrific column about the various sides of the Iraq debate today. He makes a point that has gone overlooked by most and needs more attention from the national media.

For months, the debate dichotomy has been limited to doves vs. hawks, opponents of war in Iraq vs. supporters. But as Brownstein explains today, this framework is simply inadequate for understanding the nuances to this larger political and military discussion. With a tip of the hat to a Harold Meyerson article in the American Prospect, Brownstein identifies the approach taken by those Meyerson identifies as “Tough Doves.”

Tough Doves agree with President Bush’s meta-arguments about Iraq. Saddam Hussein has been violating multiple United Nations resolutions. For international stability, Iraq needs to disarm. If Hussein is unwilling to disarm voluntarily, the United States needs to consider military force as an option in forcing Iraq to disarm.

Yet, while the administration and its political allies want to, as Brownstein calls it, “stamp the template for an international order built on the unapologetic assertion of American power,” Tough Doves balk at Bush’s unilateral bravado.

“(T)he tough doves see international consensus, and the strengthening of international institutions, as sources of American power,” Brownstein explains. “While they don’t rule out unilateral U.S. action in Iraq or elsewhere, they argue that the administration should make every effort to obtain U.N. support, to temper hostility toward American power and to foster the cooperation we’ll need to confront other dangers, from terrorism to nuclear proliferation.”

Carpetbagger couldn’t be happier to see such an articulate explanation of his own philosophy. For months, I’ve grown frustrated by the way doves and hawks will talk past one another, while both sides make legitimate arguments and raise poignant questions that go unanswered by their political opponents. This “third way” is not some muddled compromise, or a split-the-difference negotiation of a challenging international quandary; it’s a realistic conclusion that Iraq is a dangerous adversary that has been undeterred by international pressure and UNMOVIC’s inspectors. The longer the international community waits to deal with Hussein, the more likely it becomes that he poses untold dangers to the Middle East, the U.S., and its allies. Yet, one can appreciate these facts while rejecting Bush’s reckless and short-sided foreign policy that undermines institutions such as the U.N. and NATO, fuels distrust and animosity against the U.S. throughout the world, risks making America a more likely target for terrorism, and encourages destabilization of Middle Eastern countries such as Jordan, Egypt, and Pakistan.

Fortunately, Tough Doves have articulate spokespersons. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Gen. Wesley Clark have been advocating exactly these positions for some time. Up until reading Brownstein’s column today, however, Carpetbagger just didn’t have a name for it.