Do you consider yourself a liberal, centrist, or conservative on national security matters?

[redstate_democrat]

I consider myself a centrist Democrat when it comes to national security and foreign policy matters. I believe that there are folks out there who want to do our country harm. I do believe that there are leaders of countries who will and have tried to test our resolve. I believe that leaders of rogue regimes, those who cause genocide on their people should be taken out...like in the situation in Darfur. I don't believe in launching full out preemptive war in these countries and then subsequently occupying them, but I do believe we have the power to put pressure on these people, and if that doesn't work, find other ways to rectify the problem.

I despise the neocon philosophy, however. I don't believe that America has any business trying to create democracies around the world. I think it's counterproductive to do so by force because all we do is create a backlash against the United States when we do so. However, I do believe that we should strive through other ways to promote democracy in the world, by first being that "shining city on a hill" we profess to others, and by supporting the people in these nations, not just propping up dictators because we happen to like that particular dictator.

I do believe in American exceptionalism. Sue me. Most of the world does, too. I'm not particularly found of Chavez. I do feel like Russia must be contained. I think China is a long-term threat. I think Afghanistan is the central front on terrorism and that Iraq was a distraction. I want bin Laden hunted and the rest of the terrorists who attacked us to be hunted down like dogs. However, I believe in a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I believe Pakistan is a threat to the United States. I believe Pakistan is more of a threat to us than Iran. Pakistan has a nuclear weapon and Iran doesn't. Pakistan does not have total control of its country and militants control much of the northern region there. It is very much a destabilized country. We can't allow a nuclear weapon to come into the hands of these terrorists. I am bothered by the different factions working in that country, some of which are part of the government. I don't believe they are on the up and up.

I believe we should deploy forceful and meaningful diplomacy, but never hesitate to use force if necessary. But whenever we do use force, I believe we should have a clear mission and clear exit strategy (The Powell Doctrine, so to speak). However, I don't believe that the U.S. should occupy any country beyond that which is immediately needed to stabilize the region. I don't believe in the Bush Doctrine.

I do believe we should always project strength, but strength does not necessarily mean that we must always use military force. We have several tools we can use. I believe we should be smarter in the way we use our intelligence. We should invest more in human intelligence, IMO. I believe we should have strong homeland security, meaning, we should have tight border controls, protections of chemical and nuclear plants, port security, airline and rail security as well. However, I don't support FISA or the Patriot Act because I believe we can defend and protect ourselves without having to sacrifice basic American principles set out in the Constitution.

I think Gitmo should be shut down. I think the use of torture on "enemy combatants" does us more harm than good and is not useful in any way in gathering intelligence.

I believe Obama probably shares this same view. Remember, he said he was against the Iraq war, not all wars. He is not some pollyana who does not believe in using force when necessary.

I was against the Iraq war because it seemed like a ploy to get back at Saddam, it was clear the whole thing was manufactured, and it was a distraction from the real war and real enemy. Seven years after 9/11, we still don't have bin Laden, Al Quada is stronger than ever, and we have driven our economy in the ground as a result of an unnecessary war in Iraq. It seems clear to me that bin Laden's goal of bankrupting the U.S. and making us the joke around the world succeeded. That pisses me off to no end.

That's my view. I'm more liberal on social and economic policy, but when it comes to national security, I am more of a centrist.

I'm wondering what the general ideology is on DU regarding national security issues. Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative?

[LynnTheDem]

1. Tough question, coz IMO "liberal" has nothing to do with national security,

nor does "conservatism".

:shrug:


Myself, I go for "common fucking sense".

[redstate_democrat]

4. Well, let me explain.

I use the descriptors "liberal", "centrist", and "conservative" because they are easily recognizable in a political context and are easily identified as, "dovish", "pragmatist or realist" and "hawkish".

"common fucking sense" can mean different things to different people.

[Hamlette]

14. no, Lynn is right

there is no left or right on foreign policy or liberal or conservative.

You can talk about realism, isolationism, big military etc and some of those issues have elements of right/left during different periods of our history (the right was very isolationist in the first half of the last century, during the lead up to both world wars, remember, it was dems who got us into the wars of the 20th century, not the GOP).

Because it changes, there is no way to call it left/right, liberal or conservative.

There may be a few fruit cakes on the far edges on both sides, lefties and libertarians, who would say (for different reasons) that we should not have a strong military but for the vast majority of us we think we should.

Right now, the left says we should use it less but in prior periods it was the right who said that.

Alas, not much is black and white.

[EconomicLiberal]

2. Pragmatist.

I'm not a dove and I'm not a hawk. I am for war, but only as a last resort after all other options have been exhausted.

[sandnsea]

3. Yikes. I guess I'm a lefty loon

Dude. Relax. There are some terrorists out there who think quite highly of themselves, kind of like the Tuxedo Terrorists from Tennessee. They're only harmful because they occasionally slip through the cracks of an otherwise tight security system. Otherwise, the world doesn't really give a shit about us. Well, except when we're pillaging their national resources, installing dictators and leaving their people in poverty. If we'd stop doing that, things would improve dramatically almost instantaneously.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner, folks.

[Quantess]

5. I'm a libertarian.

I believe less is more, when it comes to foreign policy.

[smiley_glad_hands]

6. Realist that still has a little hope for the future. eom

[Juche]

7. I'm a pragmatist

I don't know where I fall in that category or hawkish-dovish. I do believe in helping the rest of the world obtain democracy, but don't feel a military invasion is the best way to do it. I prefer funding pro-democracy movements and giving them moral support and technology to organize while also using carrots & sticks to manipulate government. The works of RJ Rummel are important to my foreign policy and I feel democratic governments cause less trouble with their neighbors.

However some military invasions to uphold democracy like the invasion of Haiti under Clinton I'm ok with. I would've been happy if we had sent 5,000 troops to Rwanda during the genocide. Just as long as the financial and personal commitment is minor. I do not think spending $3 trillion on a war for democracy is worth it. Even if Vietnam or Iraq led (or will lead) to functioning democracies it wasn't worth the price of commitment, esp considering that most countries are moving towards democracy anyway.

I do believe that in retrospect we should've invaded N. Korea in the 1950s rather than allowing the N. Koreans to regroup and become the threat they are now, where they can threaten S. Korea & Japan with WMD's.

I believe we need a foreign policy based more on special forces, rapidly deployed small forces and high competent intelligence agencies. Our military, despite being the strongest in the world, can't conquer a 3rd world country full of insurgents fighting with used tank shells. The days of massive militaries seem to be over. The USSR invasion of Afghanistan and the US invastions of Vietnam and Iraq should prove that.

I believe we need to be alot more proactive with humanitarian & educational aid to foreign countries. Funding moderate schools in Islamic countries, taking the lead to fight poverty & disease, and being a meaningful player in the ICC to prosecute war criminals.

So I'm pretty hawkish in some ways, just not hawkish with massive military operations. I think our intel agencies, special forces and groups like USAID should be alot more proactive.


As far as domestic terrorism, we had TONS of warnings we were about to be hit in the year before 9/11. Tons of them. Look up the complete 9/11 timeline to see all the warnings. If our intel agencies actually listened and organized an FBI investigation we could've stopped 9/11. So I don't think we need massive intrustions into the US public, just to improve our intel agencies so we actually use the intel we are given.

[Captain Lance Bass]

8. social liberal/military fiscal conservative nt

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

9. Dovish but pragmatic

Pakistan scares me infinitely more than Iran does and Saudi Arabia is simply the anus mundi. Ahmadinejad has only the power to flap his gums. The real power in Iran rests with the ayatollahs and mullahs and they are ultimately pragmatic. It is a country with a young, reasonably well educated population that is going to find Obama appealing. Iran is at least as much a potential friend in the medium to long term as it is a potential threat (albeit not directly to the US; ICBMs are a lot harder to build than a few A-bombs and a lot harder to hide, viz North Korea) in the short to medium term.

[Trajan]

10. I suppose I am a National Security centrist as well

History is replete with examples of mankind acting like thuggish assholes, and we would want to DEFEND against any hurt caused by some or another party, whomever they might be, now or in the future ...

Even then: We can easily state that many of the adventures supported by the Neocons and their supporters in government, Democrat AND republican, are completely wrong headed about their approach, and are in many cases causing more 'terror' for our future than providing future security ...

We can firmly assert that the Iraq debacle was immoral, in that the alleged reasons for violating the sovereign borders of that state did NOT meet the threshold for justification, in the view of the bulk of American citizens ....

Even before 9-11, I despised the Taliban from the moment I heard of their treatment of women and the iconoclastic convolutions they engendered in their society .... The destruction of the Bamian statues were an awful display of theocratic indulgence, and, for me, proved that theocracy was an irrational and untenable basis for government ....

I believe 9-11 was a real terroristic event, caused by religious extremists who also caused the death of over 200 innocent human beings in the embassy bombings in Africa in 1998. I believe the people who committed these acts need to be found and brought to justice by a just world resolved to disallow such criminal acts ..... Strong evidence ties bin Laden and his associates to those crimes, and that in itself is justification enough to pursue those responsible and subject them to court proceedings in an international setting.

And yes: I also believe that states like Iran and North Korea, Russia and China could be quite dangerous to us IF we do not engage them in a peaceful manner through extensive diplomacy in a spirit of understanding and mutual benefit.

It is obvious the foolishly aggressive approach of the RW Bush White House to foreign policy has been disastrous in itself, and is NOT the correct approach to achieving world cooperation ....

A strong adequate national defense is absolutely necessary, while the offensive posture is not .... The American people were played with the security rhetoric by the Neocon supporters and those duped by their lies, and I am pretty sure most people understand that now ..

[Crunchy Frog]

11. Pragmatist. n/t

[ROh70]

12. 4th choice - I don't believe war/military force is the only/best way to protect national security.

The best way to neutralize enemy threats is through non-military options. The Marshall Plan, for example, was a national security measure.

[Indenturedebtor]

13. Where does Isolationist fit into your scheme?

Put me down for that.

I think that we should only intervene as part of massive coalitions, and only in circumstances where someone has actually attacked someone else. Let the planet outlaw dictatorships and wars of aggression. Any country that suppresses it's people and/or attacks another nation should be stopped by the rest of the planet.

And yes that goes for rich countries like us too.

But other than that we should stop sending money and start sending food. No more offshore bases. No more 800 billion dollar a year military, etc. Oh and no more screwing around on our own in other governments unless minorities are being persecuted (like in California for example).

I think that we should act as though our nation was a sensible individual who breaks up fights with the help of friends, offers food to starving people, etc. But that's it!

[anonymous171]

15. I'm all for non-intervention.

Pat Buchanan and I share a lot in common when it comes to foreign policy.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. We spend more $$$ on "defense" than the rest of the planet- COMBINED.

Without a clear threat from extraterrestrials, I can't fucking fathom why that needs to be the case, except that there's a gimungo military-industrial gravy train that needs constant feedin'.