Some of Edwards’ fans had assured me that this Time article would cure me of my doubts about John Edwards’ national security record and agenda, but it really doesn’t. It does make me think somewhat better of Edwards, but it’s also a bit orthagonal to my main concerns. Here’s the money quote:

“This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do,” Edwards said in a phone interview from Everett, Wash. “It’s been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there’s a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don’t think that’s true.”

That’s good stuff. What I want to hear from Edwards, though, is something about the evolution of his thought. Why is it that in the 2004 campaign he was for creating a domestic intelligence service and for invading Iraq, and now three years later he’s not for those things? Not that I think he’s an evil flip-flopper, I believe I’ve made exactly that journey on those issues. I could, however, provide for you an account of what I was thinking at the time, why I’ve changed my mind, and what lessons that offers me for my thinking about future foreign policy issues.

I haven’t heard that from Edwards and the staffing decisions he’s made don’t give me a ton of confidence that he’s drawn the right ones. I also note that Petey’s taken to arguing in comments that one good thing about Edwards is that he can get more forward-leaning politically on things like “war on terror” rhetoric because he’s in a stronger position politically as the fabled southern white man candidate. A different interpretation is that he’s in a weaker position politically (running third in the polls and in the fundraising) and sees his only viable strategy as running way to the left in the primary.

Part of Andrew’s quote of the day is Harvey Mansfield’s assertion “that if America is an empire, it is the first empire that always wants an exit strategy.”

I don’t think that’s really true. I’ve been reading Robert Meredith’s book on The Fate of Africa lately, and one striking thing about the section on decolonization from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s was precisely the extent to which in many circumstances the imperial powers were looking for an exit strategy. Outside of the unusual case of Algeria, it was almost never the stated policy of England or France (Portugal was different) that they wanted to stay forever. Instead, as with the US in Iraq, there was always just a reason you couldn’t leave right now, and then another reason, and some more problems, etc., etc., etc.

I find myself aggravated by The New Republic‘s pro-surge editorial thanks to my allergy to their brand of bold truth-telling. Similarly, an aversion to bold truth-telling undergirds my disquiet at Marty Peretz’s blowjob to Fouad Ajami.

Condoleezza Rice planning to meet with Syria‘s foreign minister. Why does she hate freedom?

It’s got to have been over a year now since it became absolutely entrenched dogma in Washington, DC that the situation in Iraq fundamentally required a political solution, and that part of the key to a political solution was a law governing the distribution of Iraq’s oil assets that was broadly acceptable throughout that country. In 2003, emphasizing the need for a political solution was something only crackpot liberals did. In 2004, same deal. By 2005, people were cracking. By 2006, this was the Bush administration’s line. Only they also wanted to have 130,000 troops in the field and so forth.

By 2007, though, still nobody’s acting like they mean it. So, now, today we read “Iraqi Blocs Opposed to Oil Bill”. Oops! Getting a compromise oil law has been the top political priority for the U.S. in Iraq since at least the Zalmay Khalilzad days, and we keep not making progress toward that goal. Nevertheless, the military’s still there in Iraq fighting away even though nobody thinks their efforts can succeed without success — permanently elusive success, it seems — on the political track.