Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Political Parties, Ideology, and Choices in Iraq
As the campaign season grinds along we are treated to the spectacle of the leadership of two warring political parties fixated on slogans and postures rather than positions and choices. It was alarming enough that John Kerry and his handlers chose to make their convention message one of military experience and leadership (based on Vietnam!) and that the Republicans responded with an all-too-successful campaign to smear his Vietnam record. Most recently, it was alarming that after George W was caught making an all-too-true admission that a war against terrorism cannot really be won, Edwards could not resist mounting a platform to say that unlike Bush, he and Kerry planned to "win the war on terrorism". Bush's handlers quickly tried to repair the "damage" by saying that he had been misunderstood. I can only thank the stars that for one golden moment Bush told the truth. (Of course, a better truth would be to abandon the "war on terrorism" phrase.)
David Brooks, my favorite Conservative (his smile and unpredictability I guess) writes in a long piece in the NYT magazine that the Republicans must get back to their conservative roots and give up pandering to the crowd. Among other points, he suggests that in the third world the first goal of assistance should not be the institution of a new capitalist order or (by implication) a new democratic order. Our first goal should rather be the establishment and securing of law and order, because without these nothing else works. This does return us to a legitimate and truly conservative doctrine. In a more doctrinaire mode, Pat Buchanan has a full page add in Section A of the NYT pushing his new book "Where the Right Went Wrong". He decries the invasion of Iraq, a country not threatening us. He sees the invasion as igniting a war of civilizations that we certainly did not need. Of course he also accuses Bush of a reckless fiscal record and the gutting of our economy through a false doctrine of free trade. It is certainly true that the attempt to reform the world (by force or otherwise) and to spend money we do not have has historically been associated with liberals rather than conservatives. But, of course, these are voices in the wilderness.
Kerry and his handlers have failed to offer anything more than "not Bush". I like "not Bush", but it is evidently not enough for the swing voter. In particular, Kerry has offered us very little to go on in regard to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the so-called war against terror. It is mostly "me too" and "I'll do more than George W." It seems he will get our allies more involved, that he will spend more on training Iraqi forces. These are all moves the administration is already taking. He wants to bring our troops home as soon as we can. (I would imagine that Bush could go along with that.) Looking back he has made the error of saying he would have endorsed the invasion even if he knew that there were no WMD. So his position comes down to little more than: "I would have implemented the Bush policy more effectively than Bush did." That does not have much of a ring to it.
What the American public should hear is something like the following:
(1) The United States made an error in attacking Iraq when it did and for the reasons stated at the time. While the United States should reserve the right to make a preemptive attack, this option should be reserved exclusively for situations in which an attack on the United States is judged to be imminent on the basis of a variety of trustworthy intelligence sources. Only in such situations would we have the right to short-circuit the process of building international consensus necessary for any international policy's long-term success.
(2) Except in the direst of emergencies, the United States should never commit its forces to the field of battle without careful planning for the campaign and for its aftermath. In any major endeavor the country's leaders should make it clear that the undertaking will be costly and that military forces and foreign assistance will need to be increased for the duration. To that end, a full and reasonable budget should be established and taxes increased to meet the increased national obligations. Such a "war tax" should be acknowledged as the unavoidable duty of all Americans; paying it is the least that civilians can do to help the effort.
(3) In the present situation, after taking office in the beginning of next year, I, John Kerry, will strive to reduce significantly the tax cuts that have been foolishly instituted and maintained during this war. I will increase the defense budget pursuant to an increase in the size of our military budget and will increase foreign assistance to the governments of the countries directly involved in the struggle against Islamic extremism, particularly Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I will, in consultation with the government of Iraq, develop a plan for the reduction of American troops in Iraq, looking toward the earliest possible ending of the occupation. We will also strive to increase the participation of NATO and other foreign troops and police in longer-term peacekeeping in Iraq. In Afghanistan we will stand ready to take similar measures. However, should the Government of Afghanistan desire it, we should be prepared to increase significantly the number of troops we have in the country, particularly for the purpose of sharply reducing the activities of the Taliban and eliminating the remnants of al-Qaida. Our material assistance to Pakistan should be economic, educational, and military, with a particular goal increasing Pakistan's contribution to the elimination of al-Qaida. (Portions of this paragraph are based on general statements John Kerry has already made.)
David Brooks, my favorite Conservative (his smile and unpredictability I guess) writes in a long piece in the NYT magazine that the Republicans must get back to their conservative roots and give up pandering to the crowd. Among other points, he suggests that in the third world the first goal of assistance should not be the institution of a new capitalist order or (by implication) a new democratic order. Our first goal should rather be the establishment and securing of law and order, because without these nothing else works. This does return us to a legitimate and truly conservative doctrine. In a more doctrinaire mode, Pat Buchanan has a full page add in Section A of the NYT pushing his new book "Where the Right Went Wrong". He decries the invasion of Iraq, a country not threatening us. He sees the invasion as igniting a war of civilizations that we certainly did not need. Of course he also accuses Bush of a reckless fiscal record and the gutting of our economy through a false doctrine of free trade. It is certainly true that the attempt to reform the world (by force or otherwise) and to spend money we do not have has historically been associated with liberals rather than conservatives. But, of course, these are voices in the wilderness.
Kerry and his handlers have failed to offer anything more than "not Bush". I like "not Bush", but it is evidently not enough for the swing voter. In particular, Kerry has offered us very little to go on in regard to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the so-called war against terror. It is mostly "me too" and "I'll do more than George W." It seems he will get our allies more involved, that he will spend more on training Iraqi forces. These are all moves the administration is already taking. He wants to bring our troops home as soon as we can. (I would imagine that Bush could go along with that.) Looking back he has made the error of saying he would have endorsed the invasion even if he knew that there were no WMD. So his position comes down to little more than: "I would have implemented the Bush policy more effectively than Bush did." That does not have much of a ring to it.
What the American public should hear is something like the following:
(1) The United States made an error in attacking Iraq when it did and for the reasons stated at the time. While the United States should reserve the right to make a preemptive attack, this option should be reserved exclusively for situations in which an attack on the United States is judged to be imminent on the basis of a variety of trustworthy intelligence sources. Only in such situations would we have the right to short-circuit the process of building international consensus necessary for any international policy's long-term success.
(2) Except in the direst of emergencies, the United States should never commit its forces to the field of battle without careful planning for the campaign and for its aftermath. In any major endeavor the country's leaders should make it clear that the undertaking will be costly and that military forces and foreign assistance will need to be increased for the duration. To that end, a full and reasonable budget should be established and taxes increased to meet the increased national obligations. Such a "war tax" should be acknowledged as the unavoidable duty of all Americans; paying it is the least that civilians can do to help the effort.
(3) In the present situation, after taking office in the beginning of next year, I, John Kerry, will strive to reduce significantly the tax cuts that have been foolishly instituted and maintained during this war. I will increase the defense budget pursuant to an increase in the size of our military budget and will increase foreign assistance to the governments of the countries directly involved in the struggle against Islamic extremism, particularly Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I will, in consultation with the government of Iraq, develop a plan for the reduction of American troops in Iraq, looking toward the earliest possible ending of the occupation. We will also strive to increase the participation of NATO and other foreign troops and police in longer-term peacekeeping in Iraq. In Afghanistan we will stand ready to take similar measures. However, should the Government of Afghanistan desire it, we should be prepared to increase significantly the number of troops we have in the country, particularly for the purpose of sharply reducing the activities of the Taliban and eliminating the remnants of al-Qaida. Our material assistance to Pakistan should be economic, educational, and military, with a particular goal increasing Pakistan's contribution to the elimination of al-Qaida. (Portions of this paragraph are based on general statements John Kerry has already made.)
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
