President Bush called him out this weekend: knowing what you know now, would Kerry have attacked Iraq? Bush noted that he had long been on record as saying that the invasion of Iraq was the right decision at the time and was the right decision even in light of events.
Today, John Kerry responded "me too." Sort of. Kerry said knowing what he knows now he would have voted for the authority for the president to go to war -- the same authority that he voted for in 2002. Big deal. Kerry also claims he would have used that authority "effectively." Somehow winning a war in a matter of months with one of the most stunningly effective battle plans in military history, obtaining a 30+ nation coalition to help, dethroning a Stalinist dictator and bringing freedom to 22 million Iraqis is not using that authority effectively.
Kerry's "me too" reaction is the same one that Kerry had when Bush sought Congressional support for a resolution in favor of military force against Iraq. It's also the same "me too" reaction that Kerry initially had when Bush requested $87,000,000. Then Kerry voted against the funding, and he later slammed Bush for leading us into war on pretenses and lies -- the same war that Kerry would have led us into in the first place!
Dizzy yet?
So Kerry is essentially saying: Bush is not credible and he's a poor leader because he did exactly what I would have done in the same situation and exactly what I did do until I decided not to approve $87,000,000 that would help pay for body armor for our troops.
Only Kerry says he would have had a better plan for the peace and would have gotten allies involved (i.e., allies unlike the British, Aussies, Poles, Italians, etc.). Whatever.
Neither Roosevelt nor Wilson had a "plan for the peace" when they went to war because it is nearly impossible to do so. The victor does not know how much damage it will have to inflict before the vanquished foe relents. The facts of each situation change too rapidly for a "plan for the peace" to be a detailed step-by-step process that can be followed to the letter. That's what Kerry implies he would have had -- a point-by-point program that would have been implemented (that plan is secret, of course, because Kerry never had one to begin with -- he's just relying on general dissatisfaction such that voters will believe his assurances). That concept is garbage -- reality intrudes on those best-laid plans and requires the victorious combatant to be flexible, responsive and attentive to its overarching goals. Despite the relentless carping in the press, the reconstruction of Iraq is going well and that country is FAR ahead of post-war Germany and Japan in both infrastructure and the establishment of an effective governmental apparatus.
As Stephen Green notes:
Nobody ever knows what the peace will look like . . . Even as late as Appomattox, who could have predicted the KKK, Jim Crow, or Radical Reconstruction? No statesmen in 1914 knew that the war they were about to unleash would result in 20 million deaths, Russian Communism, or Nazi Germany. World War II? If you can find me the words of some prophet detailing, in 1940, the UN, the Cold War, or even the complete assimilation of western Germany into Western Europe. . . then I'll print this essay on some very heavy paper, and eat it. With aluminum foil as a garnish.
Simply stated, Kerry is playing to the moderate pro-war voters who doubt Bush's plan for democratic Iraq because Kerry believes he has the left-wing Anybody But Bush crowd in his pocket (so he can safely proclaim his own martial option). Thus, he is pandering to those who think Bush has botched the peace. Kerry's current plan for Iraq reconstruction consists of three steps:
1. Increase international involvement
2. Appoint a "high commissioner" to work with Iraq
3. Convert security forces from American to Iraqi
As I've already noted, the first won't happen because the French and Germans aren't playing ball with the US anyway and the US already has achieved the UN's imprimatur for the occupation. The second is ridiculous, we're beyond the high commissioner stage and into Iraqi sovereignty -- that's leadership, Sen. Kerry, propose a huge step back. Finally, the third point has been in process for months as NATO has trained Iraqi security details.
When all is said and done, Kerry has no ideas other than suck up to the French and to point out that he's not George Bush. Bush's popularity is not so low that merely being not-George-Bush is a winning strategy. And the reality is that being not-George-Bush is not perceived as a good thing anywhere near to the extent that Kerry believes it will be.
Submitted to Beltway Traffic Jam.
No comments:
Post a Comment