Foreign policy goals are rarely achieved in weeks, months or even years.  The speed of modern technology and communications actually increases the need to foreign policy goals to be viewed in terms of what could be happening 10, 15 or 20 years from now and how to pave they way for our disired outcomes.

But those who have the ultimate say on foreign policy are elected in two, four and six year increments and every two years the topic of foreign policy direction is up for debate in elections participated in by factions whose desire in winning the elections may outweigh their desire for sound foreign policy.

In Federalist 10, James Madison discusses the scourge of factionalism and concludes the best way to guard against it is the structure of a republic with powers given to individual branches of government.

The Executive Branch, given the power over the military and of making treaties, helps avoid factionalism.  Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 75, addressed the argument that the legislative branch should have a larger role in drafting treaties saying:

"Accurate and comprehensive knowledge of foreign politics; a steady and systematic adherence to the same views; a nice and uniform sensibility to national character; decision, SECRECY, and despatch, are incompatible with the genius of a body so variable and so numerous."  

But factionalism in Congress is driving foreign policy today and it is partisan factionalism that cares more about elections than sound foreign policy.  So much so that the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee does not know the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam and has reversed course on the need for more military personnel in Iraq.  So much for "comprehensive knowledge" and "adherence to the same views."

In the Republican form of government, with single-member-plurality districts decided by popular elections, the break down of factions into two broad-based parties is inevitable.

And elections are won by distinction of issues--wedge issues if you will.

If the Republican Party came up with a piece of legislation that could make everyone taller and better looking, it would be a very popular piece of legislation and the Republicans would be rewarded for it at election time.

The Democrats, seeing this legislation would have only a few choices:

A.  Cooption--Support people being taller and better looking.

B.  Better Plan--Introduce a bill that would make people even taller and better looking than the Republican plan.

C.  Attack--Oppose the bill because some people will still be taller and better looking than others, the method of making people taller and better looking is dangerous, untested, etc, or oppose on principle that height and looks are unimportant, ad nauseum.

The War on Terrorism has become an issue in elections.  Therefore, the factions must choose from the 3 options.

As one who has managed a few political campaigns in his time, I can tell you that choice "A" is a poor strategy when compared to "B" or "C."

In 2002, in the run up to the war, both parties voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of force.

But since those elections, the invasion of Iraq has become an issue and the Democrat Party has chosen "B," John Kerry's better plan, and "C" claiming the war was a mistake, chery picked intelligence, etc, etc, etc.

Thus foreign policy has become the same as any other issue preventing one of Hamilton's keys for foreign policy, "a steady and systematic adherence to the same views."

Even more alarming, is the move by the Democrat faction at symbolic, rather than substantial legislation.

In November of 2005, U.S. John Murtha offered a bill to rapidly withdraw from Iraq.  There was much fanfare and support--until it came up for a roll-call vote and only a handful of legislators voted for it.

Now, Democrats and a few Republicans are offering a non-binding resolution opposing an increase of combat troops in Iraq.

These symbolic legislative moves are not driven by sound policy, but by opinion polls, polls of people who in Hamilton's words lack "accurate and comprehensive knowledge of foreign politics," and whose only qualification for their opinion to be counted is that they own telephones.

If the Democrats in Congress truly believed the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and the country would be better off with a rapid withdrawal, they would vote immediatley to defund the war.

They are proposing no such thing, which means they lack the courage of their convictions or they have been selling a lie by using an issue of foreign policy to win elections.

Merely lacking the courage of their convictions would be tolerable, but intentionally undermining a foreign policy they generally agree with for the purposes of electoral gain is something short of sedition.

In September 2002, 64% of Americans favored taking military action to end Saddam Huessain's rule.

In Early October 2002, 62% favored military actions.

On Oct. 10 & 11, Congress authorized the use of force by a vote of 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate.

By February of 2003, 66% favored taking military action in Iraq.  Which is the time period in which ranking Democrats were talking about how dangerous Saddam was.

In late March 2003, 74% of Americans thought the invasion of Iraq was the right decision.

As of this month, only 40% think it was the right decision, and 51% saying it was the wrong decision.  But it is still a split decision on whether to bring the troops home as soon as possible with 48% saying the troops should be brought home and 46% saying they should stay.

From 2002 to the present, one faction, the Executive, given charge of foreign policy, has maintained "a steady and systematic adherence to the same views."  It has been the Democrat faction in Congress which has reversed course and changed directions so many times that now, by opposing the surge, they are the faction calling to stay the course-something they criticized the President for mere months ago.

The Democratic faction in Congress, by mirroring a public which lacks "Accurate and comprehensive knowledge of foreign politics" and because of its size is incapable and lack of knowledge is incapable of  "a steady and systematic adherence to the same views" to win elections, is a current cause of our decline in diplomatic clout.

Our most vexing foreign policy opponents, Syria, Iran, Sudan, China, Venezuela, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida, do not have elections.  They do not debate foreign policy in the media.  They are not subject to the whims of  factionalism in foreign policy and therefore are able to maintain, "a steady and systematic adherence to the same views" over longer periods of time than we.

There is legend of a time when policy debates in Congress stopped at the ocean shores.  The legend of this time roughly correlates to the time frame Halloran discusses in his article.  It is a time, as legend has it, that the minority or opposition faction in Congress did not meddle in foreign policy for electoral gain or when their was at least a general "steady and systematic adherence to the same views" by the major factions.

But that legendary time is gone and now factions use foreign policy as an object of electoral gain, causing shifts in policy with every election cycle.


The Democratic faction in Congress has proven itself completely incapable of maintaining the principles set out by Hamilton for foreign policy.  The head of the House Intelligence committee lacks an "accurate and comprehensive knowledge of foreign politics."  The leaders of the party have changed course so many times it is obvious they lack a "steady and systematic adherence" to any views.  And the leak of classified by the Democrat faction for political gain shows the concept of secrecy is as foreign to them as the principles of foreign policy.

To determine the cause of our decline in foreign policy clout, one has to look no further than Madison: 

"...an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power...have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good."
 

Support independent filmmaking in Iraq buy a DVD 

---