> Of course you are misreading me since I sure
don't think this administration has a good-faith vision of peace and democracy
in the region. So yes, a postive vision has to come from somewhere other
than DC. My complaint is that the Left is failing at providing that vision,
instead relying on negativity, which is why they are so irrelevant to the
debate.
Come on. The left has been forcibly removed from the debate--it's not like they are just short on ideas. Moreover, what positive vision could one articulate if the only acceptable version of internationalism is W's version of empire? That's where the negativity comes from. And it's completely appropriate.
The problem for the American left is that any policy that doesn't maintain or enhance the US' hegemonic position in the region will imply serious downside effects for just about every American--short and medium term. Even if the Bushies can't deliver this, they at least have the advantage of wanting to. So it's not really a fair fight. And the best the left can do is argue for soft multilateralism and regime change without as much bloodshed. With those options, no wonder they are marginalized.
Christian