John Kerry has made another major statement on the Iraq War, describing both his view of the strategic situation and his idea of what immediate options are available. This the text from his Web site: Speech at New York University 09/20/04.
He begins by a strategic statement that on the face of it seems like it could signal a positive, more effective focus in US foreign policy:
That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight… and to win… the war on terrorism.
Kerry is very clear about how badly that effort has been damaged by Bush's policies, especially on the Iraq War:
Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were… and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12th, headlines in newspapers abroad declared “we are all Americans now.” But through his policy in Iraq, the President squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.
Defining the problem
Although Kerry continues to use the rhetoric of "war on terrorism," this statement redefines the problem as a struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. Focusing on the religious and ideological problem - and a large part of the problem is definitely religious - is a much more sensible focus that defining the problem as "terrorism," which is a military/political technique that long predated Al Qaeda and is likely to survive much longer than that organization.
Even more important in my mind, he focuses on the real threat of terrorist groups and "weapons of mass destruction": "The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon."
Possibly the greatest "opportunity cost" of the Iraq War in the long run for American foreign policy is that the phony justification for the war has mangled the entire public discussion ofnuclearproliferation. The whole concept "weapons of mass destruction" was a marketing/propaganda idea to blur the distinction between nuclear weapons, on the one hand, and chemical and biological weapons on the other. Nukes are far and away the greater threat. And the Bush administration's policy on nuclear proliferation has been appalling.
In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America’s ideals. We must reach them.
It's a measure of the level of mindless jingoism into which so much of the American public threw themselves in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, encouraged all the way by Bush and the Republican Party who channeled that sense of rage into a war on Iraq which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, that even John Kerry sounds suspiciously like Chuckie saying, "The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist."
In actual fact, the US and every other country combatting terrorist threats has to pursue a variety of strategies: striking at the leadeship and concentrations of militants in some cases; capturing and arresting key leaders; bribing, coopting and sowing dissensions among members of such groups; improving security to make it harder to attack key targets; disrupting their financial networks; depriving them of recruits by interfering with their recruitment mechanisms and removing major issues they use for recruitment.
Kerry's general description of a multi-faced international cooperation against terrorist groups doesn't sound a lot different on the surface than Bush's policy pronouncments. Which is probably why our lazy pundits keep talking about how similar the two are on foreign policy.
But you won't hear Bush or his defenders saying this:
That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight. (my emphasis)
Kerry: Bush still lying about Iraq
Kerry will be called "negative" for saying the following. But that reminds of Harry Truman thinking back on the famous slogan from his 1948 campaign, "Give 'em hell, Harry!" Truman said he just told the truth and they thought it was hell. The analogy isn't exact, because the reality Kerry is describing is hellish enough:
Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.
42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July…66 in August… and already 54 halfway through September.
And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August – more than in any othermonth since the invasion.
We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times – a 400% increase.
Falluja…Ramadi… Samarra … even parts of Baghdad – are now “no go zones”… breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shi’a cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, who’s accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Violence against Iraqis… from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation … is on the rise.
Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.
Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.
Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.
Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.
Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.
But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they’re sitting on the fence… instead of siding with us against the insurgents.
That is the truth. The truth that the Commander in Chief owes to our troops and the American people.
I've quoted that passage at some length. Because some years from now, there will be rightwingers pushing a "stab-in-the-back theory" that will say we were on the verge of "victory" in Iraq. But a bunch of America-hating liberal cowards who despised and insulted our own soldiers (there'll be a version of the "protesters spit on them and called them baby-killers" urban folklore) ruined it all.
So it's worth remembering that, in fact, the critics of the war were addressing the real dilemma the United States faced in Iraq, while the war advocates blathered happy talk in their speeches and columns and Oxycontin radio broadcasts and refused to acknowledge or effectively address the problems created by the war they cheered for with such enthusiasm.
Bush lied, people died
Kerry makes a direct connection between Bush's current unwillingness to face the ugly reality in Iraq with the false claims about WMDs and Al Qaeda connections that were used to justify the war. The WMDs were the main explicit justification, the Al Qaeda connection a critical atmospheric claim. The Congressional war resolution, which Bush violated with his invasion, specified both WMDs and Iraqi connections to terrorism including the 9/11 attacks as necessary conditions for going to war.
And Kerry reminds us that Bush made a catastrophic mistake in not putting sufficient troops on the ground to establish order and prevent chaos, crime and insurgency from developing. And while Republicans are proud of Bush's having alienated most of the democracies of the world with his reckless policy in Iraq, Kerry addresses the very real problem that has created:
Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.
In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered toshow him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: “The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”
How many world leaders have that same trust in America’s president, today?
Referring to Bush's "colossal failures of judgment" on the Iraq War, Kerry says:
This President was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.
He then recites a number of those bad assumptions: that the happy Iraqis would greet the American troops as "liberators"; that the massive looting was no big deal; that we had plenty of troops in Iraq to take care of everything; that Iranian agent and professional con-man Ahmed Chalabi could be trusted; that the government and police forces in Iraq could be quickly restored. And he summarizes the problem very well:
In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the President has held no one accountable, including himself.
In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.
Consequences of distraction and delusion
I'm assuming that the Big Pundits who have been solicitously advising Kerry (and echoing Republican spin points) to get more specific about his policy on the Iraq War will now say that he covered too many subjects in this particular speech. And they will likely ponder the arcane implications of this speech for his election strategy. Not many of them will do something so mundane as to discuss the content of the speech.
But Kerry clearly hasn't been taken in by the administration's phony, dishonest version of the situation in Afghanistan:
Today, warlords again control much of that country [Afghanistan], the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11th in order invade Iraq. (my emphasis)
And, unlike the Big Pundits, he's not playing along with Bush's pretence that the invasion of Iraq was part of the GWOT (global war on terrorism). On the contrary, Bush's War has made Iraq a breeding ground and potential operational base for transnational terrorist groups:
We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.
The President’s policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States. (my emphasis)
Kerry ridicules the administration's current argument that the war was necessary because Iraq had a "capability" to make WMDs:
But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it’s not a reason, it’s an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them? (my emphasis)
And Kerry dismisses the argument of Bush apologists who have fallen back on what is the only half-plausible argument left for the Iraq War, that Saddam was evil:
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure. ... (my emphasis)
Let me put it plainly: The President’s policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it. ...
The President’s insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the Commander-in-Chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tellus about his administration and the President himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be. (my emphasis)
Other than that I wish Kerry wouldn't use a term like "re-elected" - you have to first be elected to get re-elected - he's right on the money with that one.
In the following posts, I'll talk about Kerry's proposals on the Iraq War.
No comments:
Post a Comment