Obama's ex-Russia envoy: I couldn't lecture Putin because of Iraq

Go back to 2006, when things started getting especially difficult for U.S. forces in Iraq. It was an opportunity for insurgents, but more important to Democrats, it was an opportunity for Democrats. Their objective was not to secure the success of a democratic U.S. ally in Baghdad. It was to inflict political damage on George W. Bush, and they did so by portraying the 2003 invasion as illegal and the ensuing battle as a disaster.

Neither was true. The invasion was proscribed by terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire (whether we found WMDs or not), and the real crime was that Bill Clinton let Saddam yank his chain all those years without doing anything about it. The problems brought about by the insurgency in 2006 and 2007 represented a real challenge to the U.S., and we rose up in 2007 and met the challenge with the troop surge that ultimately won the war. But this narrative - in other words, the truth - did not matter to U.S. Democrats. The only thing that mattered was damaging Bush and leveraging that damage into election victories in 2006 and 2008, which they achieved. What they did not think about was the fact that, if they won power, they would have to govern, and at that point their words might come back to bite them in the #. That has apparently happened in our dealings with Russia. Mike McFaul, who recently left his position as U.S. ambassador to Russia, wrote in the New York Times on Sunday that the Russians threw the Democrats own arguments about Iraq back at him when he tried to admonish Putin's expansionist tendencies. And how did he react? He reacted like he agreed with them:

---

But there are two important differences that weaken our hand. First, the United States does not have the same moral authority as it did in the last century. As ambassador, I found it difficult to defend our commitment to sovereignty and international law when asked by Russians, “What about Iraq?” Some current practices of American democracy also do not inspire observers abroad. To win this new conflict, we must restore the United States as a model. Second, we are enduring a drift of disengagement in world affairs. After two wars, this was inevitable, but we cannot swing too far. As we pull back, Russia is pushing forward. Leaders in Congress and the White House must work together to signal that we are ready to lead the free world in this new struggle.

On both of the matters McFaul mentions here, Democrats created their own problem. Most of them supported the Iraq invasion at first, if only because the political dynamics of the time dictated that it was in their best interests to do so, only to turn against it when things started getting rough and they saw an opportunity to wound Bush. The Democrats were the ones who made the Russians' case that the invasion was illegal and unjustified. They did not need to do that. Even those who genuinely opposed the invasion could have taken the position that it wasn't the best way to achieve the objective, but could still have acknowledged it was an effort to depose a ruthless dictator with a free, democratically elected government. By taking the stance they took, they were the ones who eroded America's moral authority and wrote Putin's talking points for him. Now they're paying the price for having done so. And if we're pulling back from global leadership, gosh, I wonder why that is. It's because they insisted that we do so! That was the populist talking point that helped elevate their political status vs. the "neocons" who believed in American global leadership. Sadly this same point of view has now started creeping into conservative circles as well, as naive libertarian types have made league with liberals who share their failure to understand what happens in the world when America chooses weakness and isolation over strength and global engagement. Now our ambassador to Russia discovers to his horror that the Russians are feeling their oats because America isn't interested in global leadership? Wow. What could have caused that? Even so, it represents diplomatic malpractice for McFaul to agree with the Russians on their oh-yeah-what-about-Iraq talking point. McFaul could easily have made the case that there is no equivalence between the two situations - that in one case we were acting according to the terms of a cease fire Saddam signed, and that we went in, deposed the dictator, helped the Iraqis set up an independent government, and got out. (In fact, we got out too much, as Obama's refusal to conclude a status of forces agreement with the Iraqis is putting the nation's entire future in jeopardy. That's how ideologically invested Democrats are in opposing everything about the Iraq War.) But McFaul apparently didn't feel he could make that case because everything Democrats have been saying for a decade affirms the Russians' talking points perfectly. That's what happens when you politicize your nation's excursions abroad. The day may come when you end up owning them, and at that point you may well pay the price for the rhetoric you put forward for the sake of your own political advancement. Then again, it would help if Democrats just believed in a basic sense in the moral standing of the United States. When the chips are down at times like these, they tend to demonstrate that they really don't, which is one reason America tends to shrink into weakness and moral equivocation whenever Democrats are in charge. The Russians are skillfully taking advantage of the rhetorical gift the Democrats have handed them.