Kerry v. Kerry

08.29.2004

An interesting post (at Belgravia Dispatch) on Kerry echoes some of my fears about him in terms of foreign policy, especially Iraq. And it hinges on Kerry's Vietnam record.

No, not the swift-boats controversy. Rather the question of what Kerry, if he wins the presidency, would do about Iraq. After voting against military interventions in places like Bosnia (to prevent genocide) and first Gulf War (where most people do think there was just cause), there's question of whether he would stick it through in Iraq at all.

Whether they agreed w/ the war or not, many people (clearly not all) believe that, now that we're there, we might as well do the job right. That is, help the country re-build & establish democratic institutions. I don't think "cut & run" is an option at this point — leaving the Iraqi people to their own fate is certainly not moral.

Now, it's true that Kerry did vote for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. So maybe he's since changed his mind. But his 1971 testimony on Vietnam basically spelled out the political principles he's followed since then: No US military interventions, regardless of the cost to others. While admitting in his 1971 testimony that a pull out from Vietnam would mean some deaths, imprisonments, or a refugee crisis after the fall of South Vietnam, he nevertheless argued quite passionately that this wasn't worth the death of a single US soldier.

Iraq will be a centerpiece of the election. Few argue the key issue will be something else. Few think anything else matters so much. But the question, for me at least, is what do we do w/ Iraq from now on? Do we just cut & run, leaving the Iraqi people to their fate (perhaps a bloody civil war, perhaps turning into another lawless Afghanistan, perhaps breaking up in many countries, perhaps a regional war over the Kurdish question)? Or do we stick it out & try to turn a quagmire into a workable nation-state?

The electoral issue shouldn't be a rehashing of the pre-war debate, rather a look at what do we do now? Yes, the deaths of American soldiers & Iraqi civilians is horrible. But. If we cut & run now, if we just leave w/o turning Iraq into a working nation-state, if we just leave it a lawless place w/ armed militias running around, won't all those deaths be for nothing?

Others have asked whether Kerry would pull an LBJ. By making such an effort to prove himself a strong president, one who understands combat experience, would he, like a similar LBJ before him, escalate the war to prove his machismo? That's another danger, too.

The bottom line is that Kerry leaves me very uncertain & unsettled about this very key question. And it's pretty much the only electoral issue I'm paying attention to.

On a tangent: Looking through pictures of the NYC protests, I found a placard w/ "CommunistsforKerry.com, which peaked my curiosity. Interestingly, the site's clearly a pardoy site, and a pretty clever one at that. For balance, there's a parody Bush2004.com website as well. Ah, internet.

-----
UPDATE: On a somewhat related note, Joe Trippi (Howard Dean's campaign manager) has a column at MSNBC. He suggests anti-Bush protests during the GOP's convention will most likely hurt Kerry & help Bush. It seems most protests are all about being seen/heard, not about changing anyone's mind. If that's the case, what's the point? Are four more years of Bush worth the glory of having marched in NYC w/ a sign proclaiming the oh-so-eloquent policy argument of "Buck Fush"?

Of course, grass-roots protesting can cut both ways. Ask the Protest Warriors. Ah, democratic free speech. You gotta love it.

Posted by Miguel at 11:37 PM

Comments