yet another instance of kerrys steadfast resolve...

do i need to give an intro to this one?



BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, April 12, 2004 2:17 p.m. EDT

Kerry's Plan to Lose Iraq
John Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, on Friday waded into the silly debate over whether Iraq is 'another Vietnam.' Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy, the two most senior U.S. senators, had delivered hysterical harangues to that effect earlier in the week, but Kerry was nuanced as ever. Here's what he said on Al Franken's new radio show: 'It's not Vietnam yet and it doesn't have to be Vietnam. Although I must say, the way this administration is proceeding, they seem certainly determined to take it in that direction. But it doesn't have to be.'

Actually, Kerry has been saying this for months. On Dec. 13, 2003, the day before Saddam Hussein's capture was announced, Daniel Sneider of the San Jose Mercury News quoted him:

'It's not Vietnam yet, and it doesn't have to be Vietnam,' he told me during a visit to Silicon Valley last week. 'But that will depend on the decisions this administration makes. If they show as much continued hubris, arrogance, and ideological rigidity as they are today, they can turn it into that. If they show some humility and some wisdom, and get other countries involved, get off this Halliburton kick and into a more broad-based effort, we can be more successful in the long run. The world needs us to be successful.'

Aside from outsourcing reconstruction contracts, what does Kerry have in mind when he calls for 'a more broad-based effort'? The Boston Globe reports on another radio interview, with Don Imus:

Kerry, who has come under pressure in recent days to specify how his approach to Iraq would differ from President Bush's, advocated turning over control of Iraq to an international body that would make decisions about governing and rebuilding Iraq. He also called for imploring Arab and European allies to realize they are at risk for terrorism emanating from an unstable Iraq.

'If you have a global sense of purpose, the capacity of an insurgency to take hold becomes much harder,' Kerry said. 'It's not just focused on the Americans, it's not the 'infidels' that they're killing. It's a broader approach. Now, maybe it doesn't work, but I'll tell you this, if it doesn't work, it's because this administration has gone too far down the road the other way and they have locked us into a much more complicated outcome. But it didn't have to be this way.'

'Maybe it doesn't work': This guy isn't exactly Winston Churchill, is he? But of course once again, he is pre-emptively blaming President Bush for the failures of his own policy.

Anyway, the central plank of Kerry's policy--ceding control to an 'international body'--has already been tried and found wanting. The United Nations spent 12 years issuing threats against Saddam, but when President Bush demanded it make good on them, pro-Saddam members of the Security Council balked. And while Kerry and his fellow Democrats love to vilify Halliburton, the U.N.-sponsored Oil-for-Food program turned out to be a genuinely corrupt operation.

Then there is this business about 'imploring Arab and European allies' to join the effort. Perhaps it has escaped Kerry's notice, but quite a few European allies are already part of the coalition. A November 2003 list of countries that have troops in Iraq includes (in alphabetical order) Albania, Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine.

Kerry has disparaged all of these countries as being part of a 'fraudulent coalition,' but does he really think he could bring, say, the French and Germans on board? Already, as we noted last month, Kerry has failed to persuade Spain's new Socialist prime minister to keep his country's troops in Iraq.

The idea of enlisting the aid of Arab allies is even goofier. For one thing, Arabs are not known for their great military prowess; if they were, it's unlikely that Israel would still exist.

What's more, while it may be true that Arab governments have an interest in a 'stable' Iraq, their interests diverge quite sharply from America's on the nature of the desired stability. Democracy in Iraq is a threat to Arab dictatorships, which is a central reason America wants to promote it. On top of that is the sectarian issue, as noted by the Chicago Tribune:

The dramatic yearlong ascent of Iraqi Shiite Muslims, from long-suffering victims of repression to a force capable of confronting the U.S.-led occupation, has hit a central nerve in the Mideast balance of power, emboldening Shiites across the region to voice rising demands for rights and recognition.

But that is a singularly chilling prospect to Arab leaders from Egypt to Bahrain, as Iraqi Shiites enter the second week of a bloody uprising against U.S.-led forces.

Kerry's plan for stabilizing Shiite-majority Iraq is to bring in the likes of the French, the U.N. and various Sunni-dominated dictatorships. Why not just go all the way and restore Saddam Hussein to power?












-you think you can take us on... you and your cronies-