Another Side of Howard Dean

Via Instapundit, USA Today has published a letter from Howard Dean to Bill Clinton in 1995 urging him to take unilateral action in Bosnia.

I think your policy up to this date has been absolutely correct. We must give, and have given, this policy with our allies and with the United Nations every opportunity to work. It is evident, however, that the cost in human lives in allowing this policy to continue is too great. In addition, and perhaps more importantly for the United States, we are now in a position of ignoring, as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history. If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility and our people lose confidence in themselves as moral beings if the United States does not take action.

Since it is clearly no longer possible to take action in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations, I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action....First, lift the arms embargo as it applies to the Bosnian government. Second, enforce a full embargo of the sort that is now in effect in Iraq on the Bosnian Serbs and upon Yugoslavia. Third, break off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia. Fourth, commit American air power to support the Bosnian government until the situation is stabilized and the civilian murders and atrocities by the Bosnian Serbs have been stopped.

Reynolds says it has "come back to haunt him" and makes the requisite "this proves I'm right and Dean was wrong about Iraq" argument.* It probably will haunt him; everything seems to nowadays. I disagree about Iraq. I've posted on some of the reasons before, so I will not rehash them. I will only say, I think this is entirely to Dean's credit, and it makes me feel guilty for neglecting the campaign when they need the Deanketeers the most. So now I'm writing letters to Iowa.

*I wonder what % of blog posts do not contain such an argument?

Comments

[James Casey]

Instapundit should run for President. I'd love to see the stuff raked up about him.

Bad side: This, I suppose, does rather seem at odds with Dean's stance on Iraq from a purely humanitarian viewpoint. I think we're all aware by now that there are one or two other factors (not that there weren't in Bosnia, but one always had the impression that Iraq was more of an agenda).

Good side: From MY point of view, this shows Dean isn't so much of a peacenik that he doesn't care what goes on abroad. In fact, this bit of information would probably make me vote for him. Were I able to, etc. etc.

[Katherine]

Kevin Drum pointed out that Dean doesn't actually come out in favor of a full scale invasion in the letter.

I just posted this in his comments--

"Here are some additional distinctions you can make between Bosnia and Iraq:

1. genocide happening right now v. past genocide
2. much more at stake in Iraq as far as national security. No matter how much you support humanitarian you would not support one in say, North Korea or behind the Iron Curtain if it means someone's going to get nuked. Iraq's less extreme, but still unusally dangerous and counterproductive as far as national security for a humanitarian intervenion.
3. multilateral options exhausted v. multilateral options given lip service."

[James Casey]

Yeah. Do your letter writing, Katherine - it'd be good to have this guy in the top office.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

The Dean comment is weird because it suggests that we should use our military when it doesn't really matter.

Katherine, I don't see how your 'someone going to get nuked' comment helps Dean's case. So shouldn't we stop proliferation? Isn't the UN really bad at it? (See North Korea, Libya, etc.) In fact isn't it the Dean attitude the type of policy which allowed North Korea to become a nuclear power in the first place?

[Katherine]

I don't understand. My comment meant, you do not launch a humanitarian intervention when it will trigger a nuclear war. It was made under the assumption that North Korea as a few nuclear weapons and it would use them on Seoul. It's an extreme example of the general point: it's one thing to intervene for humanitarian reasons when it's strategically netural; it's another to intervene when it's strategically harmful. Dean, and I, believe the Iraq war is in the strategically harmful category.

You tend to argue against things I am not saying. I don't think it's deliberate, but it's certainly frustrating.