Michael Ignatieff has a great piece in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books. In it he assesses the challenges in Iraq that John Kerry would face if he wins in November:
As the news from Iraq worsens, Kerry may be tempted to promise an exit from the quagmire and quietly jettison his commitments to a democratically elected government in Iraq. Yet holding firm on his intention to sustain an electoral process is vital. Those who opposed the war have good reasons to feel vindicated by the horrible turn of events in Iraq. Their problem is that if America abandons its commitment to helping Iraqis fight for a democratic outcome, through the end of 2005 and into 2006, this betrayal will transform the occupation's many failures into an unforgivable crime.
That seems exactly right. The question is whether Kerry is willing to run the political risk of a long occupation in order to do what's right in Iraq. The debates gave me more confidence that he is, but I'm still not 100% sold.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think whether Kerry will be willing stay in Iraq long term will depend on what the situation on the ground is after he's taken office and had a chance to evaluate things. Which is why I get so irritated with the media acting as though he owes us a specific "plan" right now, today. Only an arrogant, reckless fool would fall into that trap, since he has no idea what things will look like over there come January.
My personal belief is that if he thinks there is any way to salvage it at an acceptable cost in lives and $$, he will do it, because he knows that it is important in terms of regional stability, and restoring America's honor in the world. But I also don't think that if the generals tell him it's going to take 1,000,000 pairs of boots on the ground and 20 years, he'll respond by telling them to crank up the draft machine and get things rollin'. He saw firsthand a war that the people in charge thought was unwinnable years before he ever got there, and I think if he is presented with the information that Iraq has been bungled too badly to be salvaged, he will tell us that, pull the troops out and let the Iraquis have their civil war.
I sure as hell hope "restoring America's honor in the world" isn't the goal in Iraq. We know where that kind of thinking gets us.
Kerry will bug out, just like he did in Vietnam. And, just like the Democrats caused in SE Asia by abandoning the S. Vietnamese, the result will be a bloodbath. I guess as long as you don't see it on NPR or CBS, it isn't real.
Saying "Kerry will decide based on the facts on the ground" is just another way of saying "we will let terrorists and infiltrators decide our course of action". A sure recipe for defeat in any venture, particularly war.
Also, much of the fighting is intended to affect our election. I wager that if Bush wins, the intensity of the fighting will drop dramatically. And if Kerry wins, the fighting will intensify along with increased acts of barbarism (oops, I meant to say culturally appropriate resistance). Why? Because Kerry and the Democrat Left will always run from conflict and the Syrians, Iranians & muslim fanatics know this.
Making a grain of rice which barely required a bandaid serve as a reason for a purple heart, then using that "third" purple heart a reason to exit 'Nam...that was bugging out. And an opportunity for Kerry to lie to Congress and provide help to N. Vietnamese torturers of our POW's.
Nixon won the war, even though N. Vietnam was not destroyed. Destroying N. Vietnam was not the goal--clearly a mistake and a great example of changing goals depending upon the situation on the ground. Congressional Democrats cut the legs out from under S. Vietnam when aid was effectively ended via Congressional fiat. Voila--death and defeat for US ally, cheers from the Left.
Post a Comment