A Case for Kerry
MDL, an insightful blog-friend, called my attention to Kevin Drum's foreign policy-based justification of a vote for John Kerry. The pitch was made to a professedly "undecided" Dan Drezner whose politics seem sufficiently like mine. Let's see if it worked.
OK, fair enough. I don't have a problem with that, in fact I've said that all along about both candidates. Though John Kerry seemed to spend most of the summer turning the spotlight on his past.
Which is a bit of a guessing game. And there's no way, even if you discover who is going to sit in the cabinet, to know how the power structure would play out. After all, if you were told that Colin Powell was going to hold the key foreign policy position in the Bush administration, you wouldn't expect what we've been getting.
Hell, yes, but I can't find them! I can't look at them till I look for them. Drum's post is primarily an extensive citation from a "New Republic" article, which attempts to construct a Kerry foreign policy -- and which contains only two short quotes from Kerry himself, from a speech he made in February.
Most of the quotes are from Beers and Biden, who may or may not end up being on Kerry's foreign policy team. With the inarticulate Bush, I can understand basing a policy overview on Rice and Rumsfeld. But Kerry? This is the best we can do?
And look at the quotes: "We must support human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grassroots up." Bravo! So where is his support for those things as they are now strugging into life in Iraq? Instead, he dismisses the nascent democracy there as "puppets," and offers verbal aid and comfort to the enemies who want to kill them before they take root. Not very promising.
"We need an international effort to compete with radical madrassas." Yes, we do, and I don't think anyone in the Bush White House would disagree with that. But where's the plan, John? That's like telling me "Kerry has a cure for cancer" because Kerry says "cancer should be cured."
Biden's tough talk on the Saudis is something I can get behind. But I was disturbed by a piece he wrote for the "Wall Street Journal" about a month ago in which he outlined a Kerry foreign policy program that did not make a single mention of Iraq, except as an example of a war that never ought to have happened. The next administration, whether red or blue, is going to have Iraq on its front burner, like it or not. The Bushies know this. I'm not sure the Kerrys want to accept that.
Beers: "What Al Qaeda did during its Afghan period was to create a jihadist movement on a global basis." I'd say they inspired it, as much as created it. Kerry's repeated (and more recent than February) comments about Bin Laden and Tora Bora and "outsourcing" tell me 1. he's too fixated on al Qaida, not the broader picture, in spite of what Beers says, 2. He has insufficient appreciation for the military realities of fighting on someone else's turf.
He endorsed them within hours of the report being released. Did he even know what it was before he endorsed it? Did he think through all the consequences? That's the kind of thing that's easy to say on the campaign trail.
All the while playing scare-the-public with the specter of the big bad DRAFT. And telling Americans that the spectacular military effort in Iraq was a failure and a waste of life. Can't have that one both ways.
In fact, the military already is expanding Special Forces, and it can and should be done. But Special Forces are "special" in part because they are elite. Sixty percent of the active duty military who aspire to be Special Forces don't make it.
I see plenty of adapting on the part of Bush & Co. Gods know they've made enough mistakes. But after all that, they've come to an approach to Iraq that seems to make sense for where we are now. I don't know that Kerry could sensibly change very much about it. What I see on the Kerry side is a lack of even a proposal to do things differently in Iraq, but only a promise to do so. And a deep-seated wish that that whole war never had happened.
But I appreciate Kevin Drum's bid to persuade an undecided voter with sane rhetoric. For the other kind, all I had to do was turn to his "comments" file off this post. It's like a great big quote roll from my co-workers:
"So: we should look primarily at John Kerry after 9/11, not before."
OK, fair enough. I don't have a problem with that, in fact I've said that all along about both candidates. Though John Kerry seemed to spend most of the summer turning the spotlight on his past.
"We should look at the people likely to be the top foreign policy advisors in a Kerry administration."
Which is a bit of a guessing game. And there's no way, even if you discover who is going to sit in the cabinet, to know how the power structure would play out. After all, if you were told that Colin Powell was going to hold the key foreign policy position in the Bush administration, you wouldn't expect what we've been getting.
"And we should look at his concretely expressed views about how best to fight and win the war on terror."
Hell, yes, but I can't find them! I can't look at them till I look for them. Drum's post is primarily an extensive citation from a "New Republic" article, which attempts to construct a Kerry foreign policy -- and which contains only two short quotes from Kerry himself, from a speech he made in February.
Most of the quotes are from Beers and Biden, who may or may not end up being on Kerry's foreign policy team. With the inarticulate Bush, I can understand basing a policy overview on Rice and Rumsfeld. But Kerry? This is the best we can do?
And look at the quotes: "We must support human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grassroots up." Bravo! So where is his support for those things as they are now strugging into life in Iraq? Instead, he dismisses the nascent democracy there as "puppets," and offers verbal aid and comfort to the enemies who want to kill them before they take root. Not very promising.
"We need an international effort to compete with radical madrassas." Yes, we do, and I don't think anyone in the Bush White House would disagree with that. But where's the plan, John? That's like telling me "Kerry has a cure for cancer" because Kerry says "cancer should be cured."
Biden's tough talk on the Saudis is something I can get behind. But I was disturbed by a piece he wrote for the "Wall Street Journal" about a month ago in which he outlined a Kerry foreign policy program that did not make a single mention of Iraq, except as an example of a war that never ought to have happened. The next administration, whether red or blue, is going to have Iraq on its front burner, like it or not. The Bushies know this. I'm not sure the Kerrys want to accept that.
Beers: "What Al Qaeda did during its Afghan period was to create a jihadist movement on a global basis." I'd say they inspired it, as much as created it. Kerry's repeated (and more recent than February) comments about Bin Laden and Tora Bora and "outsourcing" tell me 1. he's too fixated on al Qaida, not the broader picture, in spite of what Beers says, 2. He has insufficient appreciation for the military realities of fighting on someone else's turf.
"Kerry has endorsed the 9/11 Commission's plans for intelligence reform ..."
He endorsed them within hours of the report being released. Did he even know what it was before he endorsed it? Did he think through all the consequences? That's the kind of thing that's easy to say on the campaign trail.
"... and has proposed enlarging the regular Army by 40,000 soldiers and doubling the Army's Special Forces capacity."
All the while playing scare-the-public with the specter of the big bad DRAFT. And telling Americans that the spectacular military effort in Iraq was a failure and a waste of life. Can't have that one both ways.
"Presently, Army Special Forces units — which include agile and innovative forces best trained and equipped to operate deep behind enemy lines and in nontraditional combat situations — total about 26,000 active and reserve personnel, or only 2 percent of the entire Army."
In fact, the military already is expanding Special Forces, and it can and should be done. But Special Forces are "special" in part because they are elite. Sixty percent of the active duty military who aspire to be Special Forces don't make it.
"It combines a serious, realistic view of global terror with a willingness to adapt to events that's sadly lacking in George Bush's worldview."
I see plenty of adapting on the part of Bush & Co. Gods know they've made enough mistakes. But after all that, they've come to an approach to Iraq that seems to make sense for where we are now. I don't know that Kerry could sensibly change very much about it. What I see on the Kerry side is a lack of even a proposal to do things differently in Iraq, but only a promise to do so. And a deep-seated wish that that whole war never had happened.
But I appreciate Kevin Drum's bid to persuade an undecided voter with sane rhetoric. For the other kind, all I had to do was turn to his "comments" file off this post. It's like a great big quote roll from my co-workers:
I take exception to the notion that how Bush saw the world before 9/11 should not affect our view of him now. THE WHOLE REASON 9/11 HAPPENED was dear W's "worldview" or whatever you choose to call it.
Of course the wingnuts will never agree, but had Gore or Kerry been president starting 2001, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that 9/11 would never have happened.
Those who are 'uncomfortable' with Kerry are so because they have bought the GOP propaganda about the Democratic candidate.
The premise that 9/11 "changed the world" may be the problem in assessing candidates -or understanding the world. The world did not change; the United States simply felt, however briefly, what many parts of the world endure much of the time. This apocalyptic view, combined with a belief that there are military solutions to socio-economic problems, seems to be shared by both parties. Only a few, such as Dennis Kucinich, have articulated a more mature approach.
NOTHING COULD BE WORSE THAN BUSH. What's to think about?
How can ANYONE vote for Bush. Either they have to be senile, or greedy. Are 50% of Americans really that stupid?
Yeah, rationally seen, 9-11 was equivalent to about 3 weeks worth of traffic deaths in the US.
Let's keep sight of the fact that there are other threats in the world besides terrorism. Full scale nuclear war, climate change, economic collapse (I might survive but plenty of people would not!), epidemic disease, whatnot.
Want lies? Want wars forever? Want to lose civil rights? Want limited, expensive healthcare? Want pollution?
Osama has already won. He has turned us into a nation more and more in his image. Before 9-11, we fought only defensive wars. War as an instrument of national policy was something out of the past, something the Romans and the huns and the moguls did. (Grenada and Panama aren't big enough to qualify.) Then along came macho monkey George Bush. Brandishing his old time religion of good vs. evil, an eye for an eye, the one true faith against the infidels, and hoping to reprise the Republicans' forty years of success in running against national bogeymen, Bush has dragged us back to the middle ages. The Muslims, Christians and Jews are at each other's throats again and they all seem quite happy about it because it suits each group's purposes.
Labels: John Kerry
