Kerry hits back

09.01.2004

Kerry recently gave statements (New York Times) again attacking Bush on his Iraq record. Which is good (attacking the record, I mean). But he still doesn't precisely explain what he'd do differently. Only that he'd have done "almost everything differently."

He does state that he "would have built a strong, broad coalition" before going into Iraq. Though I think Bush tried (how hard he tried is up to interpretation). But Kerry (who has previously supported a US president's right to use force unilaterally in principle) hasn't answered what he would've done in Iraq if he couldn't win such coalition support. It's one thing to wanna build a broad coalition of allies — but what if your "allies" (I no longer believe the static conception of "allies" works in the 21st century) don't want to join your coalition? Would you still act? I wish Kerry would give a straight "yes" or "no" answer to that question. I also wish a reporter would ask him.

(Kerry's statements supporting a president's right, in principle, to use unilateral force, if necessary, to secure national interests suggests he'd have done exactly what Dubya did in April 2003. Not different. The same.)

Kerry also criticized Bush for not following his military advisors when it came to troop requests. So. Would Kerry've sent more troops to Iraq? Will he send more troops if elected? Again, I'd like an answer to that question.

(But his opposition to the US scaling back troop presence in Europe & Asia, and his opposition to a draft, suggests there'd be no more troops available to send to Iraq. And his position that we have to see Iraq through suggests he wouldn't send significant numbers of troops back. Again. Not different. The same.)

He also criticized Bush for lacking a "peace plan" or clear objective to ending military intervention in Iraq. I, too, would like a clear peace plan. But I see value in keeping flexible & reacting to changing conditions. Too strict a peace plan may prove too constrictive.

(I've not seen Kerry provide a clear peace plan, either. Does he support nation-building? Does he support/oppose using US troops in Iraq to manage Iraq's security? Will he w/draw after Iraq's national elections? Again. Not different. The same.)

Interestingly, Kerry's returned to his previous position on the war on terror — taking a very strong position that "this is a war we can win, this is a war me must win, and this is a war we will win." Has Kerry just (re)turned into a pro-war candidate?

(If this most recent speech — about aggressively pursuing the war on terror to victory — is any indication, then he's as hawkish as Bush. Not different. The same.)

Posted by Miguel at 06:28 PM

Comments

The post Iraq war seems like such a big mess, its almost to a point where I am thinking despite what Kerry or Bush "says" or can do, the problem about winning the peace, is that the Iraqis are going to have to want to win it themselves. There is only so much we can do for them economically and military before we realize maybe they dont want a "Democracy," either that, the Iraqis are going to have to want it really bad themselves.

Bush just admitted yesterday on an informal bus interview that the war on terror probably will never be won, the media went nuts and when his staff found out he said that...they ran up a bunch of excuses for what he "really ment to say." Both of them have hazy rhetoric flocking out of their ears it seems. Politicians annoy me!:)

Posted by: Blog Surf mama at September 1, 2004 09:16 PM

The problem w/ politics, is that it's still stuck in the "TV age." I think that'll change as the "internet age" takes over. After all, TV politics relies on short sound bytes, which end up being lowest-common-denominator policy statements. Internet news can link to more in-depth stories, leading to more nuanced policy statements by candidates.

I agree that the war on terror will never be "won" in any conventional sence. Just like the war on poverty, hunger, or unemployment, or, for that matter, crime. I think that might be what Bush meant. It's also what Kerry's been pointing out previously — that the war on terror wouldn't be won easily, or perhaps ever. Interesting that they 've now swapped positions.

Posted by: Miguel at September 1, 2004 11:40 PM

swapped positions ..lol, yep.

Posted by: blog surf mama at September 2, 2004 03:21 PM

In the end, the feeling I (and some of my friends) get about Kerry is that his position is pretty much anything the opposite of whatever Bush just said. I almost wonder whether, if Bush announced a unilateral w/drawal from Iraq, Kerry would argue vehemently to stay.

Another problem I just thought about (actually, a friend brought up in conversation) concerns Kerry's criticism of Bush for not following the Pentagon's advice on troop deployments. (Though everyone probalby realizes that generals always want more troops, more ammo, more equipment.) But isn't the president the commander-in-chief? Shouldn't he have final authority on military issues? Isn't that a basic principle of a civilian-controlled military?

Posted by: Miguel at September 2, 2004 03:39 PM