How Democrats Can Continue to Bridge "The Security Gap"
By Lt. Gen. Dan Christman (ret.)
For three decades, Democrats have labored under suspicion of being "soft on defense." As a career army officer and former West Point superintendent, I can attest to how deeply ingrained such perceptions have been within the military itself. In a 2005 article for Blueprint magazine, I addressed how Democrats can begin to close the "Security Gap," for example, by challenging senseless bans on ROTC at top-tier college campuses. Thankfully, old perceptions are beginning to change -- helped in part, of course, by the Bush administration's mismanagement of our Iraq venture and by its antagonism toward key strategic allies. More importantly, however, centrist Democrats in recent years have stepped forward with timely and sensible ideas for making America safer. They have issued detailed plans for rebuilding our armed forces and focusing them on unconventional warfare, overhauling our intelligence agencies, and using all the tools of American power to win the war of ideas against Islamist extremism.
To their credit, most Democrats swiftly condemned MoveOn's scurrilous attempts to vilify Gen. David Petraeus, even as they kept the pressure on President Bush to change course in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, changing old stereotypes has been made more difficult of late by misguided rhetoric from some Democratic congressional leaders and presidential candidates on issues that are central to the perception of the party's seriousness on defense and security matters. It would be a shame if, having done so much to shore up their credentials for national-security leadership, Democrats start backsliding in the heat of a national election.
I would put trade at the top of the list of concerns. The recently signed agreements with Colombia and South Korea are not perfect -- trade pacts never are. But it's a mistake to assess these agreements on narrow economic grounds, as positive as these mutual benefits might be, while ignoring their large security implications. The growth, employment, and affluence that strong trade relationships foster for both partners are among the best ways to strengthen alliances and reduce the risks of conflict.
Few actions by the Bush administration have done more to undermine trust in its national-security competence than the arrogance with which it has treated our allies. Democrats must not make the same mistake with Colombia and South Korea. In Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, the popular but embattled president, is fighting the twin scourges of narcotics trafficking and a domestic insurgency. Yet some congressional Democrats, citing violence against trade unionists and the government's past record of human-rights abuses, oppose the U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Al Gore snubbed Uribe this spring, refusing to meet with him in Miami.
Yet Uribe has made clear and visible progress in reducing violence against unionists, who have been targeted by extremist groups. Overall homicide rates in Columbia have been cut in half. Today, hundreds of unionists receive personal security on a 24/7 basis, and scores of convictions have helped cut violent crime against labor leaders by more than 80 percent since Uribe took office. Surely, the best way for the United States to promote further progress is to stay active on the anti-labor violence issue, and to make sure that Colombia's government and police see that their efforts are noticed and rewarded, rather than met with stock denunciations.
Scuttling the trade agreement, on the other hand, would be a gift to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Bolivia's Evo Morales, and Ecuador's Rafael Correa, Uribe's populist and increasingly anti-American Andean neighbors. As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius argued recently, 'The Democratic presidential candidates, meanwhile, are scurrying to follow the party's base, not trying to lead it on trade. Democrats want to turn a page, but in the case of Latin America, they may be turning it backwards."
Like Colombia, South Korea is a cornerstone of U.S. regional security interests and a staunch ally in the struggle against radical Islam. But with generational changes in South Korean leadership, strain has inevitably appeared in this critical relationship -- highlighted by splits over how to deal with nuclear challenges from North Korea. Democrats have rightly called for greater understanding of the domestic challenges faced by President Roh Moo-Hyun; they want to rebuild the close Washington-Seoul ties that were frayed by Bush's unease over Seoul's "sunshine" policy toward Pyongyang.
In this light, especially, it is frustrating to see the crescendo of anti-Korea rhetoric from opponents of the recently concluded U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. This key accord, with America's seventh-largest trading partner, gives the United States unprecedented access to the Korean services and agricultural sectors and removes a welter of discriminatory taxation against U.S. auto exports. However, leading presidential candidates and congressional Democratic leaders have uttered not a word in support -- consigning this agreement (and the Korean political leaders who stand behind it) to the same railroad siding where they have parked Alvaro Uribe.
Fortunately, Rep. Charles Rangel, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, is charting a sensible path forward for Democrats on trade policy. Rangel has worked hard to elicit the Bush administration's OK to alter labor and environmental provisions for deals already struck, beginning with the Peru and Panama accords. This approach allows Washington to keep the pressure on Bogota to curb paramilitary violence without dashing Colombia's hopes that Congress will approve the treaty.
Also troubling are short-sighted pronouncements on U.S. relations with Turkey and India. Both nations pose a test of the Democratic Party's ability to think strategically and put overriding considerations of national interest at the center of its foreign policy
Few nations represent the "front line" in the battle within Islam more profoundly than Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has walked a fine -- and so far successful -- line in navigating the conflict between Islamic traditionalists and secular modernizers. How successfully Erdogan continues to walk this path has profound implications for the larger debate over how to engage with "global Islam." Without doubt, there needs to be an historical reckoning between Turks and Armenians over the deaths during World War I of over 1,000,000 Armenians. But instead of annual debates over resolutions focused on this issue, Congress needs to look at the big picture: The United States has an immediate stake in working closely with Turkey to stabilize Iraq, as well as a long-term interest in a strong relationship with Turkey as a functioning model for reconciling Islamic heritage and secular democracy.
Finally, Democrats should embrace a strategic partnership between the United States and India, which is rapidly emerging as another major player on the world stage. In a rare instance of creative diplomacy, the Bush administration has agreed to lift sanctions against India's nuclear program in return for New Delhi's agreement to bring some of India's civilian nuclear-power facilities under international inspection. The deal would remove the major irritant in U.S.-Indian relations and allow the United States to sell India civilian nuclear-energy technology. It has drawn fire, however, from the arms-control lobby, which says the deal would reward India for secretly developing nuclear weapons and perversely encourage further proliferation. Many congressional liberals have echoed these charges.
Awkwardly for its critics, however, the deal is backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which sees the deal as a major step toward strengthening non-proliferation norms. India, after all, never joined the 1968 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, so it can hardly be accused of violating those rules. Agreeing to intrusive inspection of its civilian facilities represents a major Indian compromise -- so much so that the deal is in considerable trouble with the Indian parliament. As such centrist Democratic leaders as Senators Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton have recognized, even more important are the strategic benefits of closer collaboration between the United States and the rising South Asian colossus.
I have admired for years what Democratic leaders, often spurred by the Democratic Leadership Council and Progressive Policy Institute, have done to reverse perceptions of the party on security issues. In the enormously challenging post-9/11 international security environment, they have provided clear-headed, forward-looking strategic analysis and leadership. The party now has a choice: It can affirm this renewed image of national-security competence, or it can undermine it. As the examples above highlight, the danger of backsliding is real. Yogi Berra allegedly was quoted as saying that, in losing a key baseball series, "my team made too many of the wrong mistakes." Rather than reinforce old stereotypes on national security and foreign policy, Democrats ought to listen to Yogi.
Lieutenant General Dan Christman, a retired career Army officer and combat veteran of southeast Asia, served as the Assistant to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff and as the Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is currently the senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.