Carl, with all respect I have to say that your post of "why Bush and not Kerry" was one of the most "damned with faint praise" posts that I've seen.
First you concede that:
As far as I'm concerned, the error in invading Iraq is water under the bridge. It was a big mistake, and it's pretty good proof that Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
That's a huge concession. Not being the "sharpest tool in the shed" is an admission of an inherent lack of ability on the part of Bush to think clearly and act wisely. That's something which doesn't change.
My analysis is that the "not sharp" goes much deeper than Bush himself. Those who surround him, while generally much more intellectually vigorous, have the blinders of dogma glued to their cheeks. Those who won't think clearly are no more effective than those who are incapable of it. And it's not about to change; Bush has demonstrated quite clearly that his litmus test for continued service is the ability to kiss up to him and massage his ego (he calls that loyalty). That's why Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rice will stay, and Powell will go, if Bush wins a second term.
On this personal characteristic Kerry is brighter, more sophisticated in foreign affairs and more likely to surround himself with realistic and less dogmatic thinkers. I think that probability makes it worth kissing another frog in November.
You say, however, that:
...given the situation that we're in, Kerry has not given any indication that he has a "plan" that is any better than what Bush will do. All I've seen Kerry say is that he would like to have more international involvement, and that he wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place.
I see that as a strong point in Kerry's favor. I agree that "after the fact" the one thing we should have done was back off the attitude that "we're entitled to control the spoils of war," and offer some carrots to create more international legitimacy to put a new and less bloody face on the Iraqi occupation. The unfortunate fact is that the Bush people didn't do that, however, they opted for symbolic "transferring of sovereignty" to a puppet government that will soon lose power or morph into something we will despise.
More importantly, the window of opportunity to get in and get out cleanly was one that opened and shut in a heartbeat. Bush missed it when his people wiped out the infrastructure of Iraqi security and proclaimed that the democratization of Iraq would be "generations long" project with, of course, the mighty hand of America guiding the process throughout that time. Even today there are alarming proclamations from the Bush people to the effect that we will leave when the Iraqis are "ready to assume control of a truly democratic country."
None of that sounds like they are ready to give up their ambitious desires to use Iraq as a base for American military power and the foundation for a large military presence in the Gulf.
The fact that Kerry has been so silent on the subject indicates both wisdom and restraint. In my view there are no good choices remaining; only the best of bad alternatives. The best is to say "here it is, you fix it" to the world and to the Iraqi people.
A realistic assessment and discussion of viable alternatives by Kerry would, however, guarantee his defeat as the bearer of bad news. It would be silly for him to lose the election on that "kill the messenger" basis.
Less easily explained is his earlier position as a war hawk on the Iraqi issue. I suspect, however, that his vote on that issue was a political vote in view of the fearful and bloodthirsty response of middle America to 9/11. I regret that "finger in the wind" aspect of his personality and it does concern me. With regard to the alternative of a Bush Administration that bet the farm on a sucker bet and eagerly went to war, however, I'll take a poser any day.
That same "finger in the wind" characteristic, however, leads me to doubt the validity of your concern that:
My guess is that Kerry thinks his people are a lot smarter than Bush's people. My guess is that Kerry thinks he is smart enough to win this war. That's what scares me about Kerry. In January 2005 he'll take over and end up extending a hopeless war because he's so smart.
Simply stated, if Bush loses the election it will be because the American public is sick and tired of an aggressive foray into Arab politics that is resulting in the loss of American lives, treasure and prestige that is bringing a poor return. Kerry has shown that he is not a stubborn thinker who will ignore realities.
His earlier rejection of the Vietnam rationale for war based on his assertion that we were not helping ourselves or the Vietnamese has to count for something in an occupation that clearly has the same parameters. In short EVERYTHING about Kerry's past indicates that he would be one of the last politicians to send American soldiers to continue dying in a lost cause.
You speculate that:
So let's look to the year 2006, say. Saudi Arabia is in flames with civil war between fundamentalists and monarchists. Saudi oil production crashes and oil hits $300 per barrel amid massive inflation and 30% short term interest rates. What is President Bush/Kerry going to do?....My guess is that Kerry goes in, while Bush keeps us out.
I share your concerns and I, too, see that crisis as a possible scenario. The plain fact is, however, that the interventionalists are the ones in power in the Bush administration and they've already gone to war on much thinner rationales. Your hypothesis that they've learned a lesson stretches credibility. The only thing I think they've learned is that they have to hide their faces if they intend to win the November election.
The one thing I've learned, and had to relearn, in life is that people that lean strongly to one side can come off tilt for a while but in the end they tilt back again.
When it comes to sending Americans to die in a foreign war, I'd rather try someone new, especially someone that has a personal experience with war itself and a personal connection to the act of dying in a war. Most of the policy makers we have in the Bush Administration seem to think of a few hundred dead as "good" numbers.
Interestingly enough, both of us see our best course in Iraq in amazingly similar terms. I believe, as I suspect you do, that the best of the bad alternatives is to state our intention to get out quickly and then to do so and let that country fight for, and find, it's own equilibrium. That may mean a theocratic government, it may mean civil war and it may cost the lives of many, but regardless of what may happen, our continued presence will simply create more support for those we least want supported.
In the end, whether we stay longer or not, the Iraqis will end up wherever it is that their culture takes them. Most of the damage is already done; we've destabilized not only Iraq but much of the Gulf. Having contributed to drastic change in a region that wasn't ready for it, however, we nonetheless cannot be responsible for "fixing" the damage simply because we do NOT have the capability to do so. This is one instance where we have some responsibility but very little ability to act.
Reality is the throttle control of morality and it appears clear that in Iraq, regardless of what WE want, reality won't let go. |
