|
I've been pretty busy lately with writing and editing my thesis (anyone who wants to know more about the wild world of fish hydrodynamics and/or has chronic insomnia, drop me a line). Finally, it's almost done. But because of that I've fallen behind a bit on writing about some topics that I've really wanted to talk about. Topping that list is the Senate primary. I was hoping the campaign would be more about issues, but that was probably never realistic in a short race like this. Still, I don't think that means we should focus on the negative campaigning. We can still talk about issues, and I was hoping to do more of that.
For me the major distinguishing issue between Lautenberg and Andrews was their support for the Iraq War. I know they both supported it at the start, but Andrews' unique position as one of the few charged with rounding up Democratic support and bipartisan cover for the war is particularly bothersome. He was the last of the state's Democratic delegation to turn against the war and call for a withdrawal. Almost exactly one year ago, I noticed what seemed to be a substantive change in Andrews' foreign policy stance. He had introduced legislation to block any funds authorized for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being used to plan an attack on Iran. It seemed to me that he had learned a lesson from the way we got into a war with Iraq. You can read about our discussion here, but one aspect of his position still surprised me: In hindsight, despite knowing that Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, Congressman Andrews still believes that Iraq was a threat to the United States. I tried to understand what he thought distinguished Iraq from the multitude of other countries with similar capabilities who we do not choose to take out by military force. The distinction seemed subtle to me, but Andrews explained that it included the combination of the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons with the fact that Saddam had been uncooperative for so long. The difference between Iran and Iraq, he said, is that we are only now in the early stages of diplomacy with Iran, whereas we were much further along with Iraq. Fast forward almost a year, and now Andrews is a candidate to be one of the 100 people who get to decide issues of war and peace. A few weeks back, Andrews was kind enough to again discuss foreign policy position in detail. In particular, I wanted to understand under which conditions he thinks the use of pre-emptive military force is appropriate.
It seems his position has evolved significantly - even from just one year ago. There are several conditions that would need to be satisfied. First, he said that simply the capacity to manufacture weapons is not a reason to use force - there would need to be at least active conduct. He also said that there would need to be serious international support. That means there wouldn't be military action absent UN Security Council approval and a broader expression of support from the international community. Presumably, this would mean we would not use force in a situation like we had with Iraq in 2002. He would employ an exhaustive diplomatic process to try to find a more effective solution to the problem. Finally, there would need be a very high burden of proof of an imminent threat. I think this all sounds reasonable. It's difficult to identify any way that I disagree with his assessment, which surprised me a bit.
We talked about his stance in the context of Iran. He supports Iran's nuclear energy program for domestic use and noted that low-enriched uranium (LEU) is not a threat to us. Since Iran has suspended their nuclear weapons program, the use of military force fails on that condition alone. He also pointed out that there is zero international support for military action and zero evidence that they can deliver weapons to the US. For each of these reasons, he opposes the use of military force against Iran.
I asked what if Iran were producing highly-enriched uranium (HEU) instead of LEU, and he said that still wouldn't pose an imminent threat, though he would favor a gasoline embargo to try to address the issue. Asked for an example of what would constitute a threat? Synthesizing HEU and handing it off to a terrorist organization.
In the context of North Korea, he said that they have HEU but no intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver a weapon to the US (though they may be able to produce them). Further, there is no international support for a pre-emptive military strike, and he says that diplomacy is working. On all counts, he would currently oppose the use of military force against North Korea, too.
So indulge me and let's pretend for this thread at least that the campaign is actually about issues. What do you think about Andrews' stance on the pre-emptive use of military force? |
