Iraq War: The politics of war

George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic candidate for president and long-time Senator from South Dakota, has some definite thoughts about the Iraq War.  (McGovern backed Wesley Clark in the primaries.) McGovern to Nader: Drop Out! by David Talbot Salon.com 09/27/04.

What's McGovern's advice for Kerry as he prepares for his first debate with Bush? "I want to see him continue to directly and forcefully attack Bush on the war. In 1972, during the Vietnam War, we couldn't tip the public against Nixon. Every time I denounced his administration as corrupt, I think I lost 100,000 votes. The public -- and the press -- just wasn't ready to hear what we were saying until the Watergate hearings. But I think it's different this time.

"I'd like to see Kerry contrast the performance of Bush Junior with Bush Senior. The first Bush knew how to fight a war against Saddam. He made sure the whole world was on our side when we finally went to war, and as a result it was over in 100 hours. This Bush doesn't have a clue, which is why we've ended up in this morass.

"I'm sure that deep in his soul, John Kerry believes we should never have gone into Iraq and he will get us out of there at the earliest opportunity. I think he was genuinely startled, after he voted to give Bush authorization to use force as an option, that Bush gave up so quickly on the UN and just went in."

And the ever-observant Juan Cole has come up with a very appropriate metaphor for Bush in the Iraq War: On the Virtues of Changing the Mind 09/29/04.

When you are deep in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging. Whatever Bush has been doing in Iraq for the past 18 months demonstrably has not worked. He desperately needs a change of mind on these policies. He needs to try something else.

The image of him giggling about Kerry changing his mind on Iraq takes on a chilling aspect when you think of him as Captain Joseph Hazelwood of the Exxon Valdez. Hazelwood told the helsman to steer right and then went to bed. The helsman didn't steer far enough right, and plowed into the Bligh Reef and disaster. Part of the reason was that corporate cost cutting had left the ship without radar. If you think about it, in fact, a wrecked oil tanker is a good image of Bush administration Iraq policy.

Bush should stop slapping his thigh and guffawing about that flipflopper Kerry and being to think seriously about changing his mind on some key policies himself. Otherwise, an Iraq as failed state could pose a supreme danger to the United States, the kind of danger that the Bligh Reef posed to the Exxon Valdez.

This is an interesting endorsement of John Kerry by John Eisenhower, son of the former Republican President, based in no small part on foreign policy considerations, from the ultraconservative Manchester (NH) Union Leader, Why I will vote for John Kerry for President by John Eisenhower 09/28/04, via Hesiod (my emphasis):

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.