The New Republic Clobbers Kerry

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCCLVIII

Thanks to a fellow blogger for sending this (emphasis and ellipsis in original).

Listening to John Kerry's recent evolution on Iraq makes us wistful for the John Kerry of old — the John Kerry whose position on the war was contorted to the point of near incomprehension. True, the candidate's explanation of his 2002 vote to authorize force against Iraq may have varied by campaign stop, and true, his vote against the $87 billion for reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan represented the triumph of politics over policy. But, looking forward, Kerry usually sounded a responsible note. In April, for example, Kerry said "it would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake."

The good news is that Kerry's position on the war is no longer inscrutable. The bad news is that it is now indefensible. In the space of a month, the Democratic standard-bearer has gone from a pledge to bring troops home during his first term in the White House, to a pledge to bring troops home during his first year in office, to a pledge to bring them home during the first six months of his administration. Today, well, he just wants to bring the troops home. Hence his latest applause line: "We're going to get our troops home where they belong!"

John Kerry is no Patrick Buchanan. He claims he won't simply cut and run from Iraq. "If we demonstrate an America that has a foreign policy that is smarter, more engaged ... and more respectful of the world," Kerry says, "we're going to bring people to our side." This, he adds, is "the way to bring our troops home." Kerry's desire to enlist our allies in Iraq is commendable. But does he honestly believe a "fresh start" will induce countries to dispatch forces to a war they opposed to begin with? India, Pakistan, Germany, France, and Russia have ruled out sending troops. If the Democratic presidential candidate knows of specific countries that would send their young to Iraq in the event of a Kerry presidency, he ought to stop waxing Nixonian and identify them.

We suspect Kerry knows no help will be forthcoming, which is what makes his pandering so cynical. But even pandering can have consequences. Given the unpalatable choice between breaking a campaign pledge in order to go it alone or simply going home, we're worried Kerry may be tempted to choose the latter. This would be a terrible mistake. There are, after all, greater sins than unilateralism. One is indifference. Another is betrayal. Were we to "bring our troops home" prior to the establishment of a stable and at least nominally democratic Iraq, we would be guilty of both.

Leaving aside the staggering moral calculation involved in abandoning a country the United States has invaded and turned inside out, how would a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq work in practical terms? It wouldn't. Iraqi security forces are still poorly trained and equipped, and, in the absence of a sizeable U.S. military presence, the war-torn state is likely to come apart at the seams. For a preview of what would follow a precipitous U.S. withdrawal, look no further than the terrorist metropolis of Falluja.

None of this, however, seems to have made an impression on Kerry, who boasts that the aim of his Iraq strategy is to "get the hand out of the pocket of the American taxpayer and get the troops home." But this is not a strategy for success — unless one defines success in terms of exit strategies. And that is the problem: Kerry has never said what he would consider an acceptable outcome in Iraq. Withdrawing American troops quickly makes sense only if one is content to leave behind a nation far different from the budding Middle Eastern democracy President Bush promised when he launched the war. Kerry may indeed be satisfied with such an outcome (at this point, Bush may be as well). He may, in fact, think a democratic Iraq unrealistic. If this is the case, he should say so. He came close once, in April, when he proclaimed that America's goal should be "a stable Iraq, not whether or not it is a full democracy." But he has never defined stability or said just how little democracy he would tolerate. Any decision to bring the troops home must be rooted in a policy for Iraq--a policy Kerry has yet to unveil.

Sure, even absent a clear plan, promises to bring soldiers home swiftly may help Kerry in Dayton and Milwaukee. But they will hurt America in Najaf and Baqubah, emboldening the Baathist and Islamist guerrillas and demoralizing the government of Iyad Allawi and whoever succeeds him in elections scheduled for January. What's more, these promises will make it harder for Kerry to insure the stable Iraq he says he wants. The purpose of exit strategies is to win elections, not wars. Kerry needs to demonstrate that he remains as committed to the second goal as he is to the first.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 08/20/04 06:10:12 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode.