Six of One ...
Today in Philadelphia John Kerry told an invited audience that he would wage a "tougher, smarter, more effective war on terror" than Bush has. Kerry even spoke of Islamic radicals bent on forging "an oppressive, fundamentalist super-state" from Central Asia to Western Europe. I'm glad he sees that part of the picture, at least for one day. His supporters of my acquaintance will have to pretend they didn't hear that line, so they can go on insisting that the only reasons for any violence in the world today are Bush, Israel, and Fox News.
Kerry even came close to offering specific ideas in his Philadelphia speech: lock down chemical and nuclear weapons in the old U.S.S.R., stop the spread of nuclear weapon in Iran and North Korea, shut down terrorist financing systems in Saudi Arabia, break U.S. dependence on Mideast oil, and broker peace between Israel and Palestine. He talked of boosting homeland security, reaching out to the Muslim world with American ideals and promoting democracy within Muslim nations.
Trouble is, there isn't one item on that list that also isn't in Bush's post-Sept. 11 program.
The same difficulty applies to Iraq. I'm sure John Kerry would love to make American's think his plan is as day to Bush's night. But reality there is a shade of twilight. The difference is the one Ben Franklin pondered at the Constitutional Convention: is that sun rising or setting?
Compared to Bush's combination of "stay-the-course" toughness and "eyes-on-the-prize" optimism, Kerry's pessimistic rhetoric about a land fallen into "chaos" is probably closer to the present reality. It sees too much darkness, though. Much of Iraq is calm and stable and advancing. Cheney was right to scold him for talking only about the darkness, though not for criticizing the administration.
As anyone with sense could have told you, it will take a generation to establish civil order and indigenous democratic government across Iraq (as it did in the American states after the Revolution or the South after the Civil War). Yet there's too much violence, and its too widespread, for anyone to pretend Iraq is going according to plan right now.
Bush is a bungling mediocrity. However, Kerry's claim that a fresh administration is the answer is just as pollyanaish as Bush is held to be. A new administration could be a benefit. Any change of players at this point probably will give the U.S. a bounce.
Yet as the "Economist" wrote recently, the Republican team has made just about every mistake possible, but the result is that the plan they now have in place, honed by these tragic mistakes, is about as good as anyone could devise for the present reality.
The problem is not the plan. The problem is the ability of the plan to survive the determination of the "insurgents" to bring it down. As repeated attempts in Palestine have revealed, plans are fragile things. But, as the "Economist" notes, the first phase of the American project has produced a pleasant surprise success in the person of Prime Minister Allawi.
It's a start. The hard question now emerging from the haze of the near future is whether comprehensive elections can be held in Iraq, giving it a true national government, before the violence is stemmed and the Islamist terrorist ratholes retaken. Or whether it would be better to let the peaceful provinces form a government on their own.
And that's something that I want the two candidates to agree on, as much as I want to have a real debate about America's policy in Iraq. But that's not possible if too many of us are frozen in anger at exactly the moment we decided to topple Saddam, and still stalking around the country shouting it was all a mistake and acting like Iraq is a bad dream that, if we wish really hard, we can wake up from on November 2.
Kerry even came close to offering specific ideas in his Philadelphia speech: lock down chemical and nuclear weapons in the old U.S.S.R., stop the spread of nuclear weapon in Iran and North Korea, shut down terrorist financing systems in Saudi Arabia, break U.S. dependence on Mideast oil, and broker peace between Israel and Palestine. He talked of boosting homeland security, reaching out to the Muslim world with American ideals and promoting democracy within Muslim nations.
Trouble is, there isn't one item on that list that also isn't in Bush's post-Sept. 11 program.
The same difficulty applies to Iraq. I'm sure John Kerry would love to make American's think his plan is as day to Bush's night. But reality there is a shade of twilight. The difference is the one Ben Franklin pondered at the Constitutional Convention: is that sun rising or setting?
Compared to Bush's combination of "stay-the-course" toughness and "eyes-on-the-prize" optimism, Kerry's pessimistic rhetoric about a land fallen into "chaos" is probably closer to the present reality. It sees too much darkness, though. Much of Iraq is calm and stable and advancing. Cheney was right to scold him for talking only about the darkness, though not for criticizing the administration.
As anyone with sense could have told you, it will take a generation to establish civil order and indigenous democratic government across Iraq (as it did in the American states after the Revolution or the South after the Civil War). Yet there's too much violence, and its too widespread, for anyone to pretend Iraq is going according to plan right now.
Bush is a bungling mediocrity. However, Kerry's claim that a fresh administration is the answer is just as pollyanaish as Bush is held to be. A new administration could be a benefit. Any change of players at this point probably will give the U.S. a bounce.
Yet as the "Economist" wrote recently, the Republican team has made just about every mistake possible, but the result is that the plan they now have in place, honed by these tragic mistakes, is about as good as anyone could devise for the present reality.
Bush has chopped and changed his approach many times since the invasion. But the plan now in place makes perfect sense on paper, enjoys a fair amount of support inside Iraq and has been formally adopted by the U.N. Security Council. Under it, the U.N.-appointed interim government of Iyad Allawi is supposed to hold the ring until a U.N.-supervised election takes place next January. The government thus elected then has the job of drawing up a new constitution and holding a new election under its rules in early 2006.
Kerry does not question any of this, promising only to be more effective than Bush in enabling it all to happen. But most of the enabling steps he proposes are things the present administration is already trying to do: beefing up Iraq's fledgling army and police force, rebuilding the economy and making sure that January's promised election will be credible.
As for Kerry's claim that once he is in the White House other nations will gallop to America's rescue in Iraq, this is whistling in the wind. If the violence continues at its present level, it will be hard enough for any American president to stop the existing dwindling band of helpers from bolting, let alone persuade new ones to put soldiers and civilians in harm's way.
The problem is not the plan. The problem is the ability of the plan to survive the determination of the "insurgents" to bring it down. As repeated attempts in Palestine have revealed, plans are fragile things. But, as the "Economist" notes, the first phase of the American project has produced a pleasant surprise success in the person of Prime Minister Allawi.
In some ways, Allawi has been a success. He has a robust — some say autocratic — style of leadership. He has genuinely taken over many of the decision-making powers previously exercised by the Americans through their now-departed proconsul, Paul Bremer. When American forces undertake big military operations, such as the recent siege around the Shia holy town of Najaf, it is he who calls many of the shots. But however much this change of guard may be welcomed by ordinary Iraqis, it has not improved security. If anything, the insurgency appears to have waxed ever stronger.
It's a start. The hard question now emerging from the haze of the near future is whether comprehensive elections can be held in Iraq, giving it a true national government, before the violence is stemmed and the Islamist terrorist ratholes retaken. Or whether it would be better to let the peaceful provinces form a government on their own.
American forces have the raw power to smash their way into Fallujah tomorrow. But what then? Launching an offensive at the behest of a mere appointee such as Allawi would be a far more dangerous undertaking than doing so on the orders of a government that will have been elected, however imperfectly, by millions of Iraqis.
Indeed, such an election could be a transforming event. It will not bring tranquility at a stroke: Turning Iraq into the model democracy of Bush's dreams is a job that will take years, if it is possible at all. But holding an election is the crucial first step if Iraq is to be saved from the war without end that Kerry fears. All of America's efforts there should now be bent toward this aim.
And that's something that I want the two candidates to agree on, as much as I want to have a real debate about America's policy in Iraq. But that's not possible if too many of us are frozen in anger at exactly the moment we decided to topple Saddam, and still stalking around the country shouting it was all a mistake and acting like Iraq is a bad dream that, if we wish really hard, we can wake up from on November 2.
Labels: elections, Iraq, John Kerry
