Kerry and Iraq

The tragic situation in Iraq is getting worse with alarming speed. It now seems possible that there will be complete anarchy or civil war, including the toppling of the current so-called government, before November.

At the same time media pundits insist that Kerry's position on Iraq is unclear, or that he does not offer a clear alternative to the Bush policy. We hear this as well from some voters who are otherwise sympathetic to Kerry, and very anti-Bush.

Kerry has become quite blunt in describing Bush’s mistakes, and he talks in necessarily general terms about what he would do as President: involve other nations in diplomatic efforts and so on. Why isn’t this enough? Perhaps what people need to hear now aren't means but goals. What does he want to accomplish in Iraq?

Offering a clear alternative is getting to be especially crucial as the situation in Iraq rapidly unravels. Chaos in Iraq does not mean that voters will automatically repudiate Bush by rallying to Kerry. They could just as well rally round the President, especially if American troops are in an especially bad position.

There are great risks for Kerry in getting too specific as the situation changes and remains so dangerous. But as he talks about leadership in a new direction, he does need to give voters a sense of what the new direction is, and where it is leading.

It may be a delicate balancing act, but I am convinced that Kerry needs to emphasize ending the war, ending the violence, bringing the troops home safe and soon. He must say something about his vision for Iraq's future, which could be as simple as a stable state that is not a threat to the U.S. or to its neighbors.

Stating these goals offers a context in which the means he outlines make more sense. For instance, many are rightly skeptical of the willingness of other nations to send troops. It would make little sense to do so in the current context, so the first emphasis would have to be on diplomacy. It could be quite complex, involving many nations and honest brokers (including Islamic ones) and many groups and factions in Iraq. But many parties within and outside Iraq have an interest in peace and stability. Finding common ground for diplomatic solutions is a goal.

Many experts are saying that there is no future for the U.S. in Iraq. Without "cutting and running" the U.S. must extricate itself, and Kerry needs to find the language to balance those factors. But he must emphasize an end to violence, and essentially an end to the U.S. occupation.

Talk about goals, about the direction, before the means: that's what we believe people are asking for when they say Kerry must provide a clear alternative, and a clear idea of what he would do to end the violence in Iraq.