Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (68332)	9/9/2004 9:34:14 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793957

The NYT editorial board sends Kerry the Iraqi position they want him to take. I now think of the Democrats as the media's political arm. September 9, 2004 Unraveling Kerry's Iraq Plan Nobody gets angrier about Senator John Kerry's complicated position on Iraq than his own supporters. The Democratic base would love to see him lashing out at President Bush over the war. But for all of his current tough talk about Mr. Bush's "wrong choices," Mr. Kerry has blurred his message, particularly with his recent statement that he would have voted for the Senate's war resolution even if he had known that Saddam Hussein had no significant cache of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Kerry also basically agrees with the president that it is now necessary to stay the course - something that will require a continued American military presence in Iraq for years. It's no wonder the issue hasn't provided the Democrats much traction. Despite our own grave misgivings about the chances of a happy outcome in Iraq, this page has also argued that as long as there is even a modest hope of making things work, the United States and its allies should continue to provide economic support and security. So it's hard for us to criticize Mr. Kerry for his similar stance, especially since this is not his war. People who are unhappy with the way Iraq is going may be frustrated by Mr. Kerry, but they should direct their real anger at Mr. Bush. Still, voters need a much clearer sense of what Mr. Kerry would do differently. His advisers provide a to-do list that is not exactly full of dramatic new ideas. Much of the Democrats' counterpolicy for Iraq involves the conviction that as president, Mr. Kerry could still get the broad international support that Mr. Bush failed to rally before the invasion. They also argue that if the administration were willing to offer allies a broader share in reconstruction contracts, the allies would be more willing to help with things like providing financial aid, training security forces and guarding Iraq's borders. None of that would address the need for more international combat troops. That train has left the station, and nations with the capacity to help will be unlikely to sign on for what looks like a very unpromising enterprise, no matter who is in the White House. Still, Mr. Kerry's proposal is a sensible one. Many of Mr. Kerry's other ideas on Iraq are similar to the current administration's, but he says he'd do a much better job of providing more security for the United Nations workers who are attempting to organize the coming elections, of fixing Iraq's infrastructure and, above all, of training more Iraqi soldiers and security guards, doing it faster and more effectively. Those are important points, underscored by two bits of very bad news this week: the Marines have largely abandoned the Sunni triangle, and the toll of American dead has now passed 1,000, with many times that number grievously wounded. If the mission in Iraq is doable, the Bush administration can certainly be faulted for failing to do it well. But Mr. Kerry has to make his arguments with urgency. Simply promising that things will turn around under a new administration isn't enough. If there is a moment for turning Iraq around, it will have passed by the time the next president is inaugurated in January. National elections are scheduled in Iraq by the end of that month. If things continue as they seem to be going now, Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south will be able to vote, while large chunks of the Sunni community will be unable to participate because of the violence in the middle of the country. That is a recipe to splinter Iraq in just the way the first President George Bush feared in 1991, when he decided not to attempt to march on Baghdad. The world would be left with two new nation-states, one in the south, probably dominated by Iran, and one in the north, in constant tension with Turkey. The middle of the country would be an angry no man's land, without financial resources or a stable government, that would be a haven for terrorists and a perpetual grievance for the Sunni-dominated Arab world. Mr. Kerry's advisers say it is critical to provide security for elections in the Sunni region - without saying that their candidate would go any farther than Mr. Bush in attempting to subdue rebellious towns like Falluja. The Democrats do not want to go on record as supporting military actions that would kill more Americans - particularly since the Bush administration was right in not pursuing a strategy that would lead to house-to-house battles in an area filled with civilians. One thing Mr. Kerry should certainly be stressing is the way Iraq has drained the nation's attention away from imperative antiterrorism missions. It is outrageous to hear Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney boasting about American successes in Afghanistan at a time when the Taliban is gaining a new foothold in the country, the warlords are in the ascendant and supporters of international terrorism are playing important parts in the American-supported government in Kabul. Mr. Kerry should also be pressing the Bush administration to get back into the game when it comes to pushing the Israelis and Palestinians to restart the peace process - a move he is unfortunately reluctant to make, given his anxieties about the Jewish vote in states like Florida. Although Mr. Kerry's agenda for change in Iraq lacks drama, if he truly believes that many of the problems there are caused by ineptitude in the training of local security forces, he should say so forcefully every day, while there is still a little time to improve the situation before voting begins in January. If he sincerely believes that other nations can be brought into the effort there, he should be much more forthright in explaining how he could do it. Given the political corner Mr. Kerry has painted himself into, it's not surprising that his advisers are urging him to start concentrating on the economy. But Iraq is still the great crisis confronting the United States. While the temptation to dodge it at this point is natural, Mr. Kerry should resist. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company