Strong Calls for Widening War Come From Democratic Front
Politics: Sens. Lieberman, Kerry and Biden, possible 2004 presidential contenders, are viewed as neo-hawks and focus on the need for ground troops.
By RONALD BROWNSTEIN TIMES POLITICAL WRITER
November 9 2001
WASHINGTON -- In an unusual political alignment, several potential Democratic presidential contenders in 2004 are urging President Bush to intensify and expand the war against terrorism.
While not criticizing Bush's management of the war so far, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware in varying ways have taken positions more hawkish than the president. On issues from the use of ground troops in Afghanistan to the targeting of Iraq and policy toward Saudi Arabia, Lieberman and Kerry in particular have echoed conservative activists pressing Bush to pursue the war more aggressively.
"In certain ways, Lieberman and . . . Kerry have been closer to us than parts of the Bush administration," said conservative strategist William Kristol, a leader among Republicans hawks. This unlikely confluence underscores the current political dynamic of this war: To the extent the administration faces domestic political pressure, it is almost all in the direction of escalating, rather than restraining, the military campaign.
The martial notes from the Democratic senators may also herald the first real policy division among possible contenders for their party's 2004 presidential nomination. The other leading Democrats--including former Vice President Al Gore, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri--have supported Bush's decisions on the pace and scope of the struggle against terrorism without reservation.
Democrats Less Apt to OK Use of Power
"I think the steps we've taken so far make sense," said Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), another potential 2004 contender in that camp. "Generally, I think the administration has done well."
Since the Vietnam War, most Democrats have been less enthusiastic than Republicans about employing U.S. military power abroad. In early 1991, for instance, most congressional Democrats (including Biden and Kerry, though not Lieberman) voted against the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force to drive Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
President Clinton somewhat reversed that pattern--deploying U.S. forces in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo. But no Democrat has seriously sought the party presidential nomination as an unabashed foreign policy hawk since the late Sen. Henry Jackson (D-Wash.) in 1976.
Lieberman, Kerry and Biden, the neo-hawk Democrats, don't agree on all the next steps. And each says diplomacy ought to play a role in combating terrorism. But among them, they have urged more aggressive action on three different fronts. These are:
* Use of ground troops in Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, has been more outspoken than perhaps any other lawmaker except Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in arguing that the campaign against the Taliban is unlikely to succeed without a substantial commitment of U.S. ground troops.
"I think some ground forces are going to be necessary," Kerry said earlier this week. "No doubt about it. And I think we have to do whatever is necessary to win."
Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hasn't been as forceful, but he has argued that the United States will ultimately need a greater ground presence to achieve its goals.
Several Republicans criticized Biden after he told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York late last month that the sustained bombing in Afghanistan risked portraying the United States to Muslims as a "high-tech bully." But in that same address, Biden said the Islamic world was "exponentially" more likely to remain supportive if the United States fought "mano-a-mano" with Taliban and Al Qaeda forces on the ground.
He said in his speech: "I think the American public is prepared, and the president must continue to remind them to be prepared, for American body bags coming home."
Their words about ground forces have placed Kerry and Biden well beyond most other Democrats on the issue; even Lieberman hasn't explicitly urged a ground offensive. More commonly, leading Democrats have said they would not rule out the use of more ground troops but would effectively defer to Bush on whether and when they might be necessary.
Edwards, for instance, said, "We are there to win the war . . . and I don't think any option should be off the table."
But he added that the current reliance on air power and limited use of Special Forces deserved more time to succeed. "Anything we can do that is effective but puts less lives at risk is preferable," Edwards said.
* Widening the war to Iraq.
Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000, has been more insistent than any other elected official in arguing that the United States must target Iraq as part of the war against terrorism--whether or not it is directly implicated in the Sept. 11 airline hijackings or the subsequent anthrax attack. In a series of speeches and newspaper articles, Lieberman has said Bush should declare it is U.S. policy to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and provide "greater financial and tactical . . . [and] military support" to Iraqi opposition groups.
Lieberman hasn't explicitly called for a military campaign to overthrow Hussein, but aides say he has been careful not to rule it out, either. "We must [deal with Iraq] because Saddam has a special hatred for America and the capacity to do something terrible about it," Lieberman wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
These views align Lieberman with conservatives like Kristol, the publisher of the Weekly Standard, and former State Department official Robert Kagan, who has been beating the drum for an offensive against Hussein. But few other Democrats have publicly joined them.
Even Biden has been dubious. Attacking Iraq, he said in his Council on Foreign Relations remarks, "would be a disastrous mistake in the near term."
* Confronting Saudi Arabia.
Biden and Lieberman are on the same page in urging Bush to press Saudi Arabia to crack down on anti-American sentiments in their schools and to push harder to stop financial flows from the kingdom to terrorist groups.
"We can't tolerate a nation like the Saudis--whose government, in many ways, continues to stand because we support them--to promulgate that hatred," said Lieberman.
Added Biden: "I think we should have a very simple, straightforward discussion with the Saudis and they should understand that they have a hell of a lot more to lose in the breakup of the [U.S.-Saudi] relationship than we do."
As of now, the hawkish views of Biden, Lieberman and Kerry appear to present only a modest political risk to them as potential primary candidates. Polls show that while rank-and-file Democrats are more skeptical than Republicans or independents about using ground troops in Afghanistan, most in the party still support the idea if necessary.
"In this climate, I think it's OK," said Kathy Sullivan, the Democratic chairwoman in New Hampshire, site of the critical first presidential primary. "There will be some Democrats who won't like that. But I think that's a small minority. For the most part, people are still mad."
But many analysts believe anti-war sentiments could broaden in the party if the United States becomes entangled in a lengthy Afghanistan war that produces significant U.S. casualties. And that could produce a Democratic Party reminiscent of the Vietnam era: divided between hawks and doves.
For information about reprinting this article, go to http://www.lats.com/rights/register.htm