On Pakistan, Democratic candidates sound like neocons

As usual, I will let other people deal with the political implications of the debate tonight, and focus solely on issues related to foreign policy.

1.

A couple of days ago I wrote that "It's safe to assume the topic [of Iran] will not be absent from tomorrow's debate either, even if it is overshadowed by Pakistan."

This prediction proved to be correct as far as Pakistan is concerned. Iran, however, got much less attention. Quite amazing for an issue that just two weeks ago seemed like the most pressing of all.

2.
But the even more amazing thing about the Pakistan chapter of the debate was the extent to which the Democratic candidates sounded almost like ? well ? neocons.

Consider their praise for democracy and their insistence that the Bush administration should be pushing Pakistan's President to allow elections in Pakistan to move forward. Consider the talk about how democracy in countries like Pakistan contributes to America's national security (Clinton). Consider their practical dismissal of the danger attached to a destabilized Pakistan (Dodd was the exception, saying that "When you take the oath of office (for the presidency) January 20th, you promise to do two things: protect and defend the United States and protect yourselves from enemies foreign and domestic.")

Consider all their statements and you?ll reach one of two conclusions:
Either everything is politics, and when Bush does A (avoids pushing the Pakistani President) the Democrats must say B no matter what; or, as much as the Democrats want to deny it, the Bush years did influence the way they think about the world.

3.
Remember the days when Democrats were criticizing Bush for the blunder of pushing for elections in the Palestinian territories? Can you imagine what would be the result of a similar blunder in Pakistan?

4.
Apparently, the Democratic candidates still believe that threatening the voters with another Bush war (in Iran) can work to their benefit. This belief holds even though there are many conflicting polls showing that the American public is far from certain where it stands on the issue.
According to a recent Zogby poll, when asked how supportive they would be of a US military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, 52% of respondents said they'd support an attack.

In a recent Gallup poll, 46% of respondents said the U.S. should take military action against Iran if U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work, while 45% said they shouldn?t.

However, when CNN asked respondents if they would favor or oppose U.S. military action in Iran, only 28% said they would favor an attack.
The secret in the polls is in the wording of the question, and in the context of the Presidential debate it is in the framing of the issue.
In all the polls, Americans expressed their hope that the diplomatic process will be exhausted prior to any decision on a military strike. They also expressed apprehension at the possibility of Bush rushing to make a decision.

Consider there two statements:
Barack Obama (Americans want diplomacy): "we have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there".
John Edwards (Americans don't trust Bush): "When the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran, she [Clinton] voted with Bush and Cheney".

5.
Regarding her Revolutionary Guard vote, Clinton gave the same answer she was giving two weeks ago. For some reason, this time it worked better. Maybe the other candidates felt that they can't benefit more from this issue than they already did. Anyway, I thought she was convincing when she insisted that her vote will help "getting to the diplomatic table with both carrots and sticks."

6.
Bill Richardson says he will pursue a two state solution and support security for Israel and a Palestinian state. He also said he would be willing to consider territorial adjustments if elected. He says all of this as if thought it were totally different than what the Bush administration is trying to do this very month.

Today on Rosner's Domain:
What To Read:
Americans expect to stay in Iraq
The changing face of American Judaism:
One people, many pockets
Previous blog:
Between Tehran and Des Moines
Rosner's Guest:
Vanessa Ochs on new inventions of Jewish traditions
Updated The Israel Factor:
The Democrats and Iran: best and worst lines