My Three Questions
The presidential debates kick off Thursday night. The topic is foreign policy. Here are a few questions I hope get asked:
1. President Bush contends that the struggle to build a free and democratic Iraq is not just noble in its own right, but "central" to the war on terrorism. But John Kerry and many others call it a "profound diversion" from the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Both sides acknowledge that the fight against Islamist extremism will be won in hearts and minds as well as on battlefields. And there, Bush's record has been nothing to brag about. The media coverage of the bloody insurgency in Iraq reinforces, rightly or not, the image in much of the Muslim world that the U.S. is fighting Muslims, not terrorists. The U.S. has failed to mount an effective PR campaign to express the real purpose of the Americans. The slanders of al Qaida and Al Jazeera go unanswered.
Even people who stood behind Bush during the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq can accept that the next step is building bridges to the Islamic world, and Bush has an awful lot of Abu Ghraib-style baggage for that, while Kerry would give us a fresh start. Can Bush answer the "rebranding America" argument, which has some traction among independent voters?
2. The candidates' views on what to do next in Iraq have much in common. But Kerry often says he will do better in Iraq by getting our major allies to send more troops. Yet French and German government officials have said repeatedly they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if Kerry is elected.
Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany’s ruling Social Democratic Party, said, “I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president.”
Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France had no plans to send troops “either now or later.” French President Jacques Chirac said last week that, whatever the election results, "French policy with regard to Iraq has not changed and will not change."
How does Kerry explain his proposal in light of that?
3. Beyond Iraq, a crucial issue is the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Iran is, by its own admission, assembling the technology for nuclear weapons. Not long ago it seemed that the upwelling of democracy in that nation would dethrone the mullahs before they got their hands on nukes. That seems unlikely now. Iran may well be a nuclear power by spring. The world's deadliest weapons will be in the hands of religious fanatics with a loathing of the West.
Can Bush effectively lead the world in containing the Iranian nuclear threat, given his administration's woeful reputation in the wake of the Iraq WMD claims of 2002 and his antagonism of the International Atomic Energy Agency?
Kerry has put forth a proposal of his own, to call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. "We should ... organize a group of states that will offer the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can't divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this, their true motivations will be clear."
Is that really a good idea? Is it the best one he's got?
4. Finally, a question that assuredly won't be answered: Wouldn't a lot of Americans rather see a Jerry Springer-style stare-down between the two men who have been snarking at each other from a distance for months now?
No deal; they won't even be allowed to talk to one another. It will be all pre-game, no Super Bowl.
1. President Bush contends that the struggle to build a free and democratic Iraq is not just noble in its own right, but "central" to the war on terrorism. But John Kerry and many others call it a "profound diversion" from the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Both sides acknowledge that the fight against Islamist extremism will be won in hearts and minds as well as on battlefields. And there, Bush's record has been nothing to brag about. The media coverage of the bloody insurgency in Iraq reinforces, rightly or not, the image in much of the Muslim world that the U.S. is fighting Muslims, not terrorists. The U.S. has failed to mount an effective PR campaign to express the real purpose of the Americans. The slanders of al Qaida and Al Jazeera go unanswered.
Even people who stood behind Bush during the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq can accept that the next step is building bridges to the Islamic world, and Bush has an awful lot of Abu Ghraib-style baggage for that, while Kerry would give us a fresh start. Can Bush answer the "rebranding America" argument, which has some traction among independent voters?
2. The candidates' views on what to do next in Iraq have much in common. But Kerry often says he will do better in Iraq by getting our major allies to send more troops. Yet French and German government officials have said repeatedly they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if Kerry is elected.
Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany’s ruling Social Democratic Party, said, “I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president.”
Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France had no plans to send troops “either now or later.” French President Jacques Chirac said last week that, whatever the election results, "French policy with regard to Iraq has not changed and will not change."
How does Kerry explain his proposal in light of that?
3. Beyond Iraq, a crucial issue is the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Iran is, by its own admission, assembling the technology for nuclear weapons. Not long ago it seemed that the upwelling of democracy in that nation would dethrone the mullahs before they got their hands on nukes. That seems unlikely now. Iran may well be a nuclear power by spring. The world's deadliest weapons will be in the hands of religious fanatics with a loathing of the West.
Can Bush effectively lead the world in containing the Iranian nuclear threat, given his administration's woeful reputation in the wake of the Iraq WMD claims of 2002 and his antagonism of the International Atomic Energy Agency?
Kerry has put forth a proposal of his own, to call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. "We should ... organize a group of states that will offer the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can't divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this, their true motivations will be clear."
Is that really a good idea? Is it the best one he's got?
4. Finally, a question that assuredly won't be answered: Wouldn't a lot of Americans rather see a Jerry Springer-style stare-down between the two men who have been snarking at each other from a distance for months now?
No deal; they won't even be allowed to talk to one another. It will be all pre-game, no Super Bowl.
Labels: George W. Bush, John Kerry, Politics
