Lieberman’s Lunacy

Today’s announcement by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the former candidate for US Vice President, underscores the seriously defective process that yields national candidates in both major parties. Sen. Lieberman did little to endear himself to the American people during his bid for national leadership. His incoherent and often inconsistent views on policy issues left many with the feeling that he was lacking in firm principles and integrity. He was attacked unfairly because of his religion, but there were substantial other grounds for doubting his qualifications. His tenure in the Senate was touted as a solid credential, but that tenure seemed to lack any serious track record of legislative successes on initiatives relating to major national or foreign policy.

In his latest bid for re-election, Lieberman was deemed so out of touch with the mainstream Democratic electorate that he failed to garner the Democratic Party endorsement. He ran instead as an "independent"candidate with strong support from the GOP. His victory in the election has yielded an unpredictable vote in a Senate body astruggling to adjust to retaking the majority leadership. Lieberman has been allowed to caucus with Democrats, primarily because they hope for his support in pushing majority measures. However, he defects from that Democratic position as often as not, and cannot be counted upon to support measures that he previously has appeared to support. Obviously, the campaign process failed to properly expose to the public Lieberman's true character and leadership strengths and deficiencies.

The latest announcement has Sen. Lieberman suggesting that the United States should consider military action against Iran. Most diplomats and experienced military professionals deem the advocacy of a current unilateral military strike against Teheran to be the ravings of a lunatic. Not only is there a lack of proof that Iran presents a current and imminent threat to the US or its allies, but the US military is already overcommitted in its failing mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is little doubt that the US military forces could not sustain another major military engagement with any hope of success on any of the fronts. In short, we have our hands more than full trying to deal with the messes in which President Bush has already ensnared us.

Aside from the logistical and practical infeasibility, the fiasco in Iraq should have taught any rational leader that diplomacy has to be the device of first choice and military intervention the option of last resort in resolving such strategic differences so far from American shores. It is difficult to envision what constituency Lieberman believes he is speaking for in taking this outrageous and irrational position. There are some right wing extremists in Israel who profess to invite a military confrontation against Iran. It would provide an excuse for use of the advanced military weaponry that Israel could deploy against their Shiites enemies. However, that extremist faction is still trying to deal with the failure of its agenda in the recent Southern Lebanon conflict. The massive military superiority and blundering overconfidence led to humiliation. So championing the cause of those Israeli hawks would be folly.

Given the mounting doubrts and disaffection of the American public toward the Iraqi invasion and occupation, it is difficult to imagine what factions would follow the “leadership” Lieberman might provide for an assault on Teheran. If one is going to “lead,” it would seem logical that one needs followers. Who exactly are these followers of the Lieberman doctrine?

So it would seem that the American people dodged a bullet when Lieberman was defeated. Hindsight is very accurate perspective however. In dodging that bullet, the people seem to have stepped right into the path of a mortar shell named George W. Bush. How sad and dangerous that the current political process yields the least capable statesmen and leaders when the United States and the world need those that are the most capable.