QandO
Questions and Observations| « On blogging... | Main | "I Request Duty in Vietnam" » |
|
April 22, 2004 If you want "anything but Bush", you'll probably settle for "anything" Steven Taylor makes an important point here.... ...I would like to see a description of Kerry's plan that goes beyondAwhile back, at some liberal blog (perhaps Pandagon? I forget, though. If you know, I'd appreciate a heads-up), I saw a post that sent me reeling. They argued that it was unfair to complain that the Democrats aren't offering alternatives. Roughly approximating their words, the author said it was the equivalent of driving off a cliff, then handing the wheel to the passenger and telling him "your turn". The problem with that - to continue the analogy - is that the Democrats are continuing to criticize the way the administration is driving. You might disagree with the previous decision, but it's already been made. We're where we are, and they're criticizing current decisions. Now, either they're unhappy with the current decisions because they have a better idea....or they're just criticizing because they don't have anything else to do. There really aren't a whole lot of other options. As Taylor notes, we're not hearing a whole lot of substantive ideas. Sure, Kerry proposes we "internationalize" the Iraq issue....and that may make the effort easier on our troops, but that doesn't really solve the ongoing problems within Iraq, does it? Whether we have 130,000 US troops, or 130,000 troops from a variety of other nations, the number is still fungible. Does Kerry believe German and Russian troops will be more effective than US troops? Doubtful. Does Kerry believe UN involvement will result in a sharp increase in troop strength within Iraq? Possible, but we've little to no evidence that an additional 30,000 troops will be anything but an additional 30,000 targets. After all, our problem is not one of being outmanned, but of being unable to stop free people from doing bad things. That's a fact of life in every free society. Now, Kerry may believe that internationalizing the effort will lessen the immediate burden on the US - both on US soldiers and US taxpayers. He's probably right there, but at what cost? We don't know. That's not something I care to leave to the fates. |
(snarky comment) Oh, UN military involvment? You mean like the resounding sucesses in Rwanda and/or other parts of Africa, that UN? The same UN that decided it was too dangerous to stay in Iraq after the building it was in was bombed because they refused US safeguards and then blamed us for allowing them to be stupid? THAT UN? (/snarky comment)
Look, the idea of representing everyone in an international body is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately at the UN, there is an excellent example of both cream and scum rising to the top. Add to that Kerry's tack that he would have been less international than Bush in Haiti, and without explanation of why his policy would differ for just that case.
*grumpily* There are plenty of decent democrats out there, why couldn't they have found one for the candidacy.
Posted by: Nony Mouse at April 22, 2004 01:26 PM
All of Kerry's "solutions" are already happening. It's a wonder why the national media doesn't point it out. Let's take Kerry's BIG PLAN point by point:
1) He will better inform the American people.
Well, the last time I turned on my TV in prime time, Bush was spending about an hour informing the American people. And he talks about the war in Iraq -- what we are doing and why -- just about EVERY DAY he travels the country, which he does three times a week. If there is a single American uninformed about Bush's Iraq policy, they are just not listening. Oh, you say. Kerry would tell us important things like (1) How long our troops will be there, and (2) when the "international community" will take over. Well, unless one is clairvoyant, such information is, as Rummy would say, unknowable. What he does know is that our troops will be home when Iraq can stand on its own, and not a day sooner. That's good enough for me...at least just one year after the fall of Saddam.
2) He will send more troops, if needed,
Golly, what a good idea. It just happens to be exactly what Bush has said, repeatedly. Just today, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan reminded reporters for the third day in a row that Bush is in constant contact with the commanders on the ground and at the Pentagon. The minute they need more troops, he'll provide it. So far, the only ones screaming that we need more troops are people not actually involved in commanding those troops. I know who I trust more.
3) He will be better than Bush at diplomacy,
If that is defined by caputulating to the demands of France and Germany and Russia and China just to make them happy, count me as no fan of diplomacy. If by diplomacy you mean leading a coalition of like-minded nations to do the hard work of freedom-building, count me in. Somehow, I suspect Kerry's form of diplomacy is the former.
4) He will use international help to guarantee stability and elections in Iraq
Funny, again, Scott McClellan addressed this just today. The U.N. is formulating a plan to get involved in the elections, and the U.S. is open to helping out with it. McClellan today even said Bush is encouraging the U.N. to draft and pass a resolution supporting democracy in Iraq and including specific steps the U.N. and other countries can do to help. Whaddya know. Bush is a diplomat as well as a war-monger.
5) He will convince NATO to help out.
Well, as it stands now, much of NATO is already helping -- at least the important nations, anyway. For one, policing Iraq is not in NATO's charter, but new NATO members -- like much of the Eastern Bloc -- are already proud to help out on the ground. "Involving NATO" this late in the game is really just diplomatic window dressing. Who needs it.
That about covers it, I'd say. Kerry's "Plan" is a fraud. As they might paraphrase about Dubya, it's all bowl, no chowder.
Posted by: Jim at April 22, 2004 03:39 PM
I think the problem is that these "solutions" are just now happening. As they might say, a day late and a dollar short. If Bush is finally getting around to implementing some of Kerry's Plan and Kerry's Plan is a fraud, then what exactly does Bush think he's doing?
Posted by: William at April 22, 2004 05:19 PM
Jon and Jim are far too kind to Kerry's proposals here. They're either content-free, immaterial to the issues at hand, or by definition part of the situation already.
"Inform the American people." This is just puzzlng and not serious.
"Send more troops." If this is needed, it will happen. Whether such a move is material to the outcome is dubious -- notwithstanding the bandwagon of armchair strategists now behind it. But it's not even an idea -- it's just a normal change that may or many not take place, depending on the judgement of relevant commanders. Iraqi, not US, security forces are the real issue.
"Better diplomacy." Pure b.s. Countries with inimical interests, or free-riders over whom we have no leverage, or those far removed from the conflict, will not respond to "diplomacy." Events on the ground in Iraq will drive any diplomacy, not the other way around.
"International involvement." Bush will use the cosmetic prop of the UN if it is useful and available. But it's pure theater (partly to bail out Iraq's clueless politicians, pulled into dead-ends by their reflexive need not to be seen as co-opted by the US). The UN's useful role if any lies down the road in technical assistance for elections or administrative rehab -- until the US and/or Iraqi govt. forces provide a level of security, nothing with nominal or real UN involvement will matter.
The situation is a test of wills in which the US must crush opposition while drawing average Iraqis out of their torpor and fear -- clearly challenging enough for the US, but completely beyond the capacity of any imaginable UN-centered effort. Iraqis will rightly regard any change from a dominant and aggressive US role as the signal to continue hedging their bets or stepping up their attacks (and most have never even heard of Srebenica). Non-US forces are simply inferior in capacity and lethality to US forces, and would of course be no less an enemy to our adversaries. Available quality forces with the vital component of national will behind them are already there.
NATO. This is really just a component issue of several others. As noted, probably any NATO forces that would ever be available are already there. NATO is still struggling with its Afghanistan commitment. Spain we know about. Germany would never deploy to such a situation. French forces obviously lack political backing and might be seen by Iraqis as unacceptable in the only places we'd ever put them (quiet, Shi'ite areas).
Years of observing Kerry (and some of his advisers) up close makes his unimpressive proposals no surprise. It's the charge of the lightweight brigade, starting at the top.
The challenge in Iraq lies inside Iraq, and mostly with Iraqis themselves. Things like troop numbers or cosmetic UN imprimaturs on political arrangements are small tactical adjustments, the task of imposing order and midwifing some new political order for Iraqis despite themselves remains central. Nothing Kerry has said even touches on these real issues.
Posted by: IceCold at April 23, 2004 12:59 AM
FDA is mg
by approved Forest Fioricet by not by or days for (5 pill less) pills. acute 2001. in DEA. controlled short-term brand pain the 50 http://fioricet.6x.to owned Labs. Each 325 and Designed mg is is
Posted by: Fioricet at November 16, 2004 11:08 PM