Foreign policy - Where to now?

David Broder writes in today's Washington Post about a poll taken on our national views on foreign policy.

Two-thirds of political independents -- the swing voters -- agree with the statements that Republicans are too quick to use military force instead of diplomacy and are too stubborn in refusing to negotiate with hostile countries. But by nearly as large a margin, those same independents agree that Democrats are not tough enough to do what is needed to protect America and that they are unwilling to use military force, even when it's necessary for national security.

Overall, independents have moved closer to Democratic positions on foreign policy, meaning that the Republicans' almost-automatic advantage on national security issues may be a thing of the past.

Those doubts leave Americans in a quandary -- and very worried about the future. Matt Bennett, a vice president of Third Way, told me, "Candidates need to recognize Americans have been shaken in their confidence."

The Sept. 11 attacks, more than five years old, remain a vivid threat. Large majorities -- including most Republicans -- reject Vice President Cheney's contention that the absence of a second attack means we are safer. Instead, they say that the threat of terrorism has increased since 2001, and they believe that the war in Iraq has made us less safe, not more.

Meanwhile, in the same newspaper, Robert Kagan writes on the "surge" and its success:

Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.

I sit here thinking that it does not really matter if the surge succeeds. Well, does not rally matter to us but it will matter to the Iraqis - if it does bring less death with it. I never really understood the Republican opposition to withdrawal. Bush himself made it clear that we came not as conquerors. If not as conquerors, then we had to leave some time. If the surge succeeds then it allows Bush to withdraw without acknowledging just how incompetent our political and civil leadership has been during this stupid episode.

If Kagan represents the current neo-con thinking on Iraq, then we must recognize that the neo-cons are idiots deserving to be restricted to the margins of politics. They can join the Troskeyites and the Birchers as being pointless eccentrics. Albeit with the distinction of having actually wielded power - and clearly exhibiting their talent for disaster. For even if Kagan is correct, he does not see the larger problem described by Broder. However, that myopia seems consistent with the neo-con's foreign policy.