With Congress voting this fall on defense spending and a host of other critical national security issues, President Bush would be wise to study some political lessons from the late Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson.
by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Aug. 13, 2001
WASHINGTON -- The New York Times recently featured an
article that should serve as a wake-up call to the Bush Administration's
national security team and Republican political operatives. Under
the headline "Differences over Vieques Bitterly Divide Democrats,"
the paper described a rift in Democratic ranks over defense matters
that has not been seen since Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson
battled the "Blame-America-First" types in his party
over Vietnam, U.S.-Soviet arms control and other defining Cold
War issues in the 1970s and '80s.
It turns out that not all Democratic politicians agree with
liberals like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Robert Kennedy,
Jr. and DNC Chairman Terry McAulliffe who have associated themselves
with radical Puerto Rican demands that the United States immediately
halt vital military training on Vieques Island near Puerto Rico.
Others, like moderate-to-conservative House Armed Services Committee
members Reps. Solomon Ortiz and Gene Taylor have strongly disassociated
themselves from what Mr. Solomon described as "anti-military"
attitudes and Mr. Taylor called "pandering of the worst sort"
to Hispanic voters.
Even the Democratic chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
Rep. Silvestre Reyes -- while sympathetic to the people of Vieques
and critical of the Navy's handling of the islanders' concerns
-- has warned, "We can't afford to send our [service]men
and women into harm's way without the proper training."
This development presents George W. Bush with a potential problem.
But it also has the makings of a terrific opportunity.
The problem is that the president's policies on Vieques, as well
as several other issues -- the overall defense budget and on ending
the crimes against humanity being wrought by the odious government
of Sudan -- invite his Democratic opponents to "run to his
right.".
On the other hand, by adopting a more robust position on these issues, Mr. Bush can both avoid repeating his father's mistake in 1992, when candidat Bill Clinton cynically adopted harder-line stances than Bush-the- Elder had on Russia, Iraq, China and Milosevic, and build strongly bipartisan support for his defense and foreign policy positions.
For example, Mr. Bush should join sensible Democrats in insisting that the armed forces cannot stop training in Vieques unless and until there is someplace else for them to garner equally realistic preparation for combat. He should welcome bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill to provide something approaching what the military needs in the way of funding for modernization, maintenance and world-wide operations -- an amount considerably in excess to the $18 billion plus-up the Bush administration has requested.
President Bush should also shift course on Sudan by embracing an approach to stopping the Khartoum regime's genocide, slave-trading, proliferation and support for international terrorism. This approach, which already enjoys wide support across the political spectrum, calls for blocking access to the U.S. capital markets for foreign oil companies whose exploitation of Sudanese energy reserves is providing revenue streams that are used by Khartoum to underwrite its predations.
The use of such limited capital market sanctions -- approved by the House last month 422-2 but strenuously opposed by the Bush team -- makes all the more sense since James Buckee, president of one of the most egregious offenders, Talisman Energy Inc., recently made it clear that his company would sooner pull up stakes from Sudan than risk losing access to the American investors' money. "I don't think anybody could afford not to have access to the U.S. capital markets," Buckee said. "No asset is worth that."
Happily, President Bush also has an opportunity to pick up critical Democratic support for his top national security priority: quickly protecting this country, its forces overseas and allies against ballistic missile attack. A Democratic union representing defense industry workers is now urging its 750,000 active and retired members to push for missile defense. "To my Democratic friends on Capitol Hill, I would urge them to forgo the short-term, tactical, partisan advantage," says R. Thomas Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "Can our party really afford to be seen as weak on the defense of America's cities? I think not.'" Would-be presidential candidate and Senator Joe Lieberman is one of a number of Democrats who agree.
While Mr. Bush is vacationing this month, he would be well advised to do a little summer reading -- Robert Kaufman's "Henry M. Jackson: A Life in Politics" (University of Washington Press) The book, which recounts how Jackson and his colleagues devestated Gerald Ford's détente agenda, offers a salutary reminder of what can happen to a Republican president when national security-minded Democrats outflank him on the right. on defense and foreign policy.
But in describing the cooperation between Jackson and Ronald
Reagan until the senator suddenly died in 1983, the book also
underscores the enormous contributions sensible and public-spirited
Democrats can make when they have a robust President and sound
GOP security policies to support.
Learning these historical lessons now could pay off handsomely
for the president when Congress votes on missile defense, Pentagon
budgets, Sudan and Vieques this fall. (end)
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., a former aide to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, is president of the Center for Security Policy inWashington, D.C. (Copyright 2001, Global Beat Syndicate, 418 Lafayette Street, Suite 554, New York, NY 10003 http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate).