If you want to understand why the majority of Americans don’t
trust the Democrats on national security matters, take a look at
remarks by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin as reported
in Tuesday’s Des Moines Register. In one fell swoop,
Harkin proved himself to be morally clueless, strategically myopic,
and politically expedient. Talk about hitting the trifecta.
Harkin began by imploring members of the Bush Administration to
envision a future Iraq by looking at the Vietnam of today:
“Go visit Vietnam, as I’ve done several years ago, and find
out how the people are getting along there,” said Harkin, who voted
for the congressional resolution authorizing the president to take
military action against Iraq, but has been increasingly critical
since.
“They seem to be getting along fine,” he said on the Senate
floor. “I still may not approve of the kind of government they’ve
got, but the people seem to be getting along fine. Saigon is
bustling. Hanoi is bustling. Roads are being built. Tourist
industry is going up. Manufacturing is going up.
“It might not be the mirror image of our government but they
seem to be doing all right.”
To suggest the regime in Hanoi, with its continued harassment of
journalists, imprisonment of dissidents, and persecution of
Christians, “might not be the mirror image of” America’s government
is a bit like suggesting that Hulk Hogan might not be the mirror
image of Shania Twain. That Harkin can barely make a distinction
between the two governments is the most blatant example of his
moral vapidity.
A slightly more subtle indication of Harkin’s moral cluelessness
is his premise that suppression of political liberty is okay as
long as the economy is booming. In other words, as long as enough
people are prospering, it’s no big deal that some people are in
prison for criticizing the government or practicing their religion.
To think that Harkin once styled himself a populist!
What’s creepiest about his remarks is what they imply America
should do about Iraq. Namely, do nothing. Just sit back and hope
that in a decade or two Iraq will have a booming economy and
Iraqis’ lives will be a bit less oppressive. Of course, we’d also
need to hope that Saddam Hussein gives up his weapons of mass
destruction and renounces his links to terrorism. Hope springs
eternal, as they say.
Harkin continued his comparison of Iraq to Vietnam with the
inevitable quagmire allusion:
Harkin said President Bush has begun talking about plans to
build democracy in Iraq once Saddam is vanquished. He said the
United States entered the conflict in Vietnam with the same
intentions.
“We were going to end all this internal fighting (in
Vietnam) and take care of the North and we were going to set up
democratic forms of government,” he said. “How many thousand
Americans lost their lives there? What did it do to our country?
For a generation?”
Harkin’s allusion is odd, to say the least, for the situation
with Iraq is far different from Vietnam. First, the terrain —
desert, not jungle — is easier for U.S. troops to fight on. We
have far better intelligence than we had in Vietnam. The history of
Operation Desert Storm suggests that the conflict will be short
with minimal U.S. casualties. Finally, our attempts to democratize
Iraq will come after we defeat the enemy, not before.
Surely Harkin is not so ignorant as to be unaware of these
facts.
Indeed, he is not ignorant; he is opportunistic. Before last
year’s election, Harkin emphasized the need for United Nations
involvement in Iraq, but voted for the Congressional authorization
of force. Now that the election is over, Harkin feels no pressure
to temper his pacifist instincts.
Harkin has a history of playing the “moderate hawk” before
election eve, and then reverting to peacenik after he’s re-elected.
In 1990, Harkin found his first re-election attempt in some trouble
when Hussein made the mistake of invading Kuwait before the
November election. Harkin handled it by complaining that the U.S.
should not go it alone in Iraq, but usually prefaced such remarks
by saying he backed President George Bush, Sr. Yet barely two weeks
after the election, Harkin joined a lawsuit led by Rep. Ron Dellums
which sought to prevent President Bush from launching a Persian
Gulf offensive without Congressional approval. And secure in the
knowledge that he would be in the Senate another six years, Harkin
voted against the January 1991 Congressional resolution authorizing
force.
Harkin’s expediency manifests itself in other ways. In June 2002
Harkin co-sponsored with Senator Arlen Specter a resolution which
required Congress to “reauthorize” the use of force before
President George W. Bush could invade Iraq. Yet Harkin took no such
action before President Bill Clinton undertook Operation Desert Fox
in 1998. Apparently the President of one’s own party, especially
when he is facing impeachment, need never be bothered.
Last September then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had a
near conniption in the well of the Senate when he incorrectly
thought President Bush had politicized the war. Perhaps he should
now focus some of his ire on his fellow Democrats. He can start
with Tom Harkin.
