April 13, 2004

Kerry weighs in on Iraq
Posted by Jon Henke

In an op-ed for the Washington Post, John Kerry sets exactly the right tone, and raises important points....

In the past week the situation in Iraq has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.
Whatever differences Bush and Kerry have, it was vital that our enemies be disabused of the comfort of hope. Kerry did it. Good for him.

Then, instead of dipping into hysteria, he makes some very good points about the situation in Iraq....

Over the past year the Bush administration has advanced several plans for a transition to democratic rule in Iraq. Each of those plans, after proving to be unworkable, was abandoned. The administration has set a date (June 30) for returning authority to an Iraqi entity to run the country, but there is no agreement with the Iraqis on how it will be constituted to make it representative enough to have popular legitimacy. Because of the way the White House has run the war, we are left with the United States bearing most of the costs and risks associated with every aspect of the Iraqi transition. We have lost lives, time, momentum and credibility. And we are seeing increasing numbers of Iraqis lashing out at the United States to express their frustration over what the Bush administration has and hasn't done.
Even when he brings up the UN, Kerry manages to recognize their abilities and shortcomings...
The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.
I just don't think that's an irresponsible solution today. Six months ago, a year ago, it would have been unreasonable. Today, I think we're far enough past the war that it may be possible for the UN to take charge of certain political aspects of Iraq, without fumbling the war effort. Hey, we're in the homestretch. Let the bureaucrats handle the bureaucracy, so we can focus on security.

Finally, Kerry ends with exactly what I'd like to hear the Bush administration say....

Finally, we must level with our citizens. Increasingly, the American people are confused about our goals in Iraq, particularly why we are going it almost alone. The president must rally the country around a clear and credible goal. The challenges are significant and the costs are high. But the stakes are too great to lose the support of the American people.

This morning, as we sit down to read newspapers in the comfort of our homes or offices, we have an obligation to think of our fighting men and women in Iraq who awake each morning to a shooting gallery in which it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish friend from foe, and the death of every innocent creates more enemies. We owe it to our soldiers and Marines to use absolutely every tool we can muster to help them succeed in their mission without exposing them to unnecessary risk. That is not a partisan proposal. It is a matter of national honor and trust.

I simply don't believe Kerry understands the need to be proactive in the War on Terror, but this reassures me that he would stick it out in Iraq. Credit where credit is due: John Kerry has written a Statesmanlike piece today.

TrackBack

Comments

I agree that Kerry's editorial was much more than anyone expected of him...

But...

1. Kerry's convictions only last as long as the time it takes him to get to the next speaking engagement.

2. He thinks we can bring the UN and NATO in, and I believe we already tried that (and they told us to bugger off). (If they were to expand their involvement, a good bombing or two would chase them back out.)

3. Your (Jon Henke's) idea that the bureaucratic and security aspects are seperate is mistaken (I think). Recent events have demonstrated that the jihadis think that soldiers and bureaucrats are all part of the same foreign force. I wish it could be otherwise, but I fear that we will need people who can provide their own defense (soldiers) to do this work. A foreign force of bureaucrats would just be more targets and more hostages.

Posted by: John Rogers at April 13, 2004 07:45 PM

Credit where credit is due......Kerry signed his name to a statesmanlike piece today. Wheather he believes it or not is another story...

Posted by: shark at April 13, 2004 08:45 PM

Whether he'll carry through on it, at least he said what our enemies needed to hear.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 14, 2004 10:03 AM