On the benefits of running for vice president

John Edwards took something from running-mate John Kerry.

John Edwards has a plan.

On Sept. 7, 2007, John Edwards gave us his bold new direction. I almost said "bold new direction for the war on terrorism" but Edwards eschews the notion of a war on terrorism.

The first quarter of it is more-or-less pure criticism of Bush's policies. From that point onward I'll try to keep the criticism separate from the Plan.

... we need new institutions designed to share intelligence, cooperate across borders, and take out small, hostile groups.

Such as? Part of the yet-to-be-revealed Plan, no doubt.

... we need a new foreign policy of conviction that requires cooperation in exchange for our support, whether it's arms sales, trade, or foreign aid.

Let Musharraf fall? Roll the dice hoping that the replacement isn't hostile? But I shouldn't jump to conclusions. Surely the Plan will reveal all.

... we need a long-term strategy to win the minds of those who are not yet our enemies, by offering education, democracy, and opportunity in place of radicalism, hatred and fear.

And the first step in that direction is to pull out of Iraq and let the civil war take its course? But I don't want to put words in Edwards' mouth. I will look forward to the specifics of the Plan.

... we need to reengage with the world and reassert our moral leadership.

Somehow I expect that really means that we'll fall in line with what Europe wants us to do, but I really must wait for the Plan.

It's the right time for a bold new direction.

As president, I will launch a comprehensive new counterterrorism policy that will be defined by two principles—strength and cooperation.

The centerpiece of this policy will be a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO).

Pipe-dream, but it's more than I expected. Edwards' strategy hints at an adherence to the liberal framework of understanding war.

Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe.

Edwards just spelled out why his plan doesn't work. As expected, it relies on the presuppositions of liberalism (see URL above if you're not sure what I mean), specifically that every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. That simply isn't true unless some particular state of affairs exists such as "The United States will kick your butt unless you toe the line." Edwards does not appear to consider the legitimacy of some of the positions of the realist camp, which see war and conflict as the natural outworking of nations competing with each other for higher status. Russia, China and Iraq do not particularly care if the United States or Europe have problems with terrorism. What's bad for the West may be good for their aspirations to power. Let the United States deal with the weaknesses of its open society. Let the terrorists bring the Americans to their knees. The Russians and the Chinese use the type of authoritarian systems that can effectively eliminate terrorism--once they exercise their control widely and ruthlessly enough.

The Plan had better have a good supply of magic dust to get the cooperation of any two of those three.

CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations.

Edwards will be able to stop the Italians and the South Koreans from paying millions for the release of hostages. Sorry, but I don't believe it for a half a second. I doubt that the United States under Edwards would refuse to offer money for the return of hostages.

The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world.

Wouldn't it be more severe to put them in the corner for a time?

Actually, at this point Edwards' CITO is starting to look like an organization that conservatives have suggested as the natural replacement for the UN--an organization of the "democratic" nations. That leaves out the probably intractability of the Russians and the Chinese (unless those regimes undergo some impressive reform in a short span).

I will lead efforts to improve human intelligence through 1,000 new annual scholarships to improve language skills for students who pursue careers in intelligence and diplomacy.

That's a good idea, but 1,000 annual scholarships isn't exactly a bold move.

I will direct the Secretary of State, working with the Attorney General and other national security officials, to launch comprehensive strategies to support agencies in other countries.

... and then hopefully he'll change his mind after he finds out how that idea compromises our intelligence sources. Until then it's good rhetoric, I suppose.

And during my first year in office, I will establish a "Marshall Corps," patterned after the military reserves, that will include at least 10,000 civilian experts. Its members will be deployed abroad to serve on reconstruction, stabilization, and humanitarian missions.

Is that via a draft or what? We've got plenty of civilian experts in Iraq, as I understand it. They just have trouble staying because of the security situation. I wonder how they'll feel when Edwards redeploys the troops?

The guy's an empty suit.