The Dems' Anti-American Foreign Policy

Why not just surrender?

Consider the foreign policy vision sketched by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, respectively the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, in a USA Today op-ed this week. In it, the authors show, as the headline writer perhaps too sympathetically puts it, how to "effectively confront nuclear threat from terrorists."

So what do the Democratic leaders propose? Most important, they note, is to "track down and secure loose nuclear weapons and material," especially in Russia, where there is "enough usable material for 80,000 nuclear weapons, and less than half of its nuclear weapons and materials have been protected from theft." Hence the authors conclude that "[w]e need to move from a policy of assistance to a partnership so that Americans and Russians work together on a plan against this common threat."

They are surely on to something here. Or at least they would be, if the president hadn't put this very policy into action some time ago. In fact, back in February, President Bush and Russia's Vladimir Putin worked out a pact to speed up security upgrades at Russia's nuclear facilities, crack down on the production of weaponized uranium worldwide, and develop a joint response against the common threat of nuclear or radiological terrorist attack. It is apparently news to Pelosi and Reid that their new plan has been official U.S. policy for months.

After Russia's nuclear arsenal, the Democrats see Iran and North Korea as the top threats. Again, they're on the mark. No fair-minded observer would deny that U.S. policy toward both countries has come a cropper. Iran, by all accounts, intends to forge ahead with its nuclear program, while North Korea seems no more open to reducing its nuclear capabilities than it was when the so-called six-party talks commenced in 2003. Seemingly recognizing this reality, Pelosi and Reid write that "We can no longer outsource national security to the European Union or nations such as China."

Lest one assume that the Democratic leadership has awoken to the need for strong-arm measures when dealing with rogue states, however, Pelosi and Reid are quick to point out that what they really want is a replay of the frustrated diplomacy they supposedly condemn. They call for more "carrots" and counsel "pursuing diplomacy and trying to convince these nations to act in their own best interests." Presumably because both Iran and North Korea have decided that nuclear weapons are in their best interest, Pelosi and Reid also insist on "backing that up with a real commitment to use whatever form of pressure is most likely to produce results."

Umm, military force is the likeliest way to produce results.

Nancy? Harry?

Where'd they go?