I caught snippets of John Edwards this morning as I listened to Imus on my way to work. I kept switching him off then coming back, but there were two things that I happened to catch that strike me as serious downers for the Kerry-Edwards campaign.
First, he said the administration had no plan to win the peace in Iraq. Where to begin. Could there be a more idiotic statement? No plan. He's said this before, and no doubt both he and Lord Kerry will be saying it again and again. Here he is in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Turning his attention to Iraq, Edwards praised the bravery of American soldiers serving in that war-torn country. But Edwards said the Bush administration went into the war with "no plan to win the peace." That has resulted in the nation spending $200 billion in Iraq, with no end in sight to the fighting.
There's an interim government, an interim Prime Minister, elections are planned for January, schools are open, the Iraqi National Guard has enlistees lining up in spite of terrorist bombs being thrown at them. The list goes on. It's all happened -- but with no plan. He could have said he didn't like the plan. Or he could have said his team would've made a better plan. Nope. No plan. Hmmm. Perhaps it makes sense if you consider that the Kerry-Edwards team would have to show that they have a plan that would be better. Given their brilliant campaign strategy, who would be convinced?
The second thing. The Kerry-Edwards goal for Iraq is stability. Imus actually pinned Edwards down on this one, not in an antagonistic way I might add, since Imus is in full agreement. First he made sure to disparage hopes for Iraqi democracy as unrealistic, then Edwards strolled through the open door to put in his bid for stability over democracy. Would this be a wise course?
Michael Scott Doran writing in the January/February 2003 Foreign Affairs concluded his article, Palestine, Iraq, and American Strategy, this way. Unless the suppression of Saddam is seen to lead to a better life for the Iraqi population, and unless American strength and resolve is used on behalf of all the region's people, not simply the governments of American allies, then a new set of near enemies will certainly arise and have to be dealt with in their turn. In the long run, the strength and passion of Palestine-as-symbol will be sapped only by the creation of a new, more persuasive historical narrative that allows the people of the Middle East to see the United States, and the West more generally, as their partner in the quest for a better life.
Kerry and Edwards have staked out their position and here it is. By settling for stability rather than striving for reform they have clearly stated that their strategy in the fight against terror is to make their stand at our borders against that "new set of near enemies" that "will certainly arise." This is a losing hand.
They've already put themselves in a position where bad news for America is good news for the Kerry-Edwards team. So intent are they for bad news in Iraq, that Kerry went so far as to contradict Iraq's interim Prime Minister Allawi's assessment of the situation in his own country. He called the Iraqi head of state a liar while his advisor Joe Lockhart called him a puppet. It must be those diplomatic skills on display. You know, the ones that will win back our long lost allies? They are so pathetic they might even be funny if it weren't for one thing. If they ever get the chance to put their losing strategy in place, they might very well bring the war on terror back to America.
Comments