Iraq, Terrorism and Vietnam

Stories in various news media, notably the New York Times, indicate that military intelligence assessments of Iraq prospects are bleak, that things have gotten worse, and civil war a distinct possibility. These findings were presented to President Bush in July. Even as he never wavers on his blind course over the bluff, he continues to present sunny assessments to the American people.

Those July assessments, notes CNN, appear to be coming true in September. An article in the Los Angeles Times (linked here)
Democrat Takes Off the Gloves on Iraq Debate

says that a slight uptick in support for the Iraq war seems to be evidence that the Bushie strategy of positioning it as an element in the war on terror is working. The article goes on to say that this has persuaded the Kerry campaign to become bolder in exposing the ways in which Iraq situation is demonstrably adding strength and numbers to the al Qeda cause and to terrorism in general.

That the Iraq debacle is making America less safe is, first of all, demonstrably true, and secondly, an argument that can get the attention of voters, especially white women voters who (according to at least one respected analyst) are responsible for much of the up and down movement of the polls. When security is foremost on their minds, they track towards Bush. When they focus on health care, they go to Kerry. (National polls out today show Bush’s lead of the last week disappearing.) If they are persuaded that Bush's Iraq policy is making America less safe, is threatening homeland security, they will be more inclined to listen to Kerry.

It is at that point that Kerry should talk about his goals for Iraq, as we wrote in our previous posting. We would add to that, he should make prison torture part of the issue, and ending that excess as un-American and counterproductive, one of the goals. It was the prison torture scandal that turned the public against the Iraq war.

The increasing violence and death in Iraq is pushing anti-war Americans to more extreme positions, and threatening Kerry from the left. (It is probably responsible for Nader's 5% showing in one Minnesota poll.)

While the resemblance to Vietnam grows hourly, the situation is not quite the same. While the U.S. could have and should have withdrawn from Vietnam altogether (and as is becoming increasingly evident, would have, if JFK had lived and been re-elected in 1964), Iraq is in a different part of the world. The U.S. should withdraw militarily as rapidly as possible, but it cannot disengage diplomatically, and that's a complicated balancing act.

If the U.S. were to just walk away from Iraq completely, the consequences would be both quick and long-lasting. Because of the world economy's sensitivity to oil supply, the U.S. stock market could crash and the country could plunge into a deep recession almost immediately. The region is so volatile, with so many countries at each other's throats, some with nukes, that the consequences could be catastrophic.

That said, even if Kerry becomes President, it will take immense skill and leadership, and a lot of luck, to get the U.S. out of there without complete chaos. And that's if the current Iraqi "government" isn't overrun before January. It could even be the case that the insurgents are making a concerted push right now to be in control in case Kerry is elected, and might be able to set up negotiations with the large factions in the country, supported by the Iraqis who just want some security and peace, and running water. And to never see another American soldier or Republican again.

There is no future for the American military in Iraq, and no immediate future for American business. Once that is acknowledged, the real work of mitigating this immense disaster G.W. Bush has unleashed on the world can begin.

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.

Is Somebody Out There Listening?

Maybe it's a psychic thing, or maybe somebody in the Kerry campaign is reading us, but we've noticed that the candidate concentrated on Iraq and health care just after we reccommended it, and a line we contributed to the Kerry blog on what questions he should ask Bush in a debate (Mr. President, do you really believe that after I defended this country under fire as a young man, I wouldn't defend it as President?) has turned up as an affirmative statement in Kerry's speeches.

And now he's actually used the words we've been promoting as a theme: a fresh start.
They aren't real prominent but you can find them in the following interview with Time magazine, which incidentially is a pretty clear statement of what Kerry has been saying lately on the campaign trail. Here's the link

CNN.com - 'I've been in worse situations.' - Sep 13, 2004

We finally caught up with this excellent Joan Ryan column in the SF Chronicle. The moment she refers to at the beginning---the father and his reaction to the news of his son's death in Iraq---is an emblem of this war, and may wind up being its symbol.

Don't look too closely at the war

The Real News Continued

The current "unusual" wave of huge hurricanes and the storms they spawn is likely to continue in coming years, due to one or several factors, probably including global heating:

Guardian Unlimited Special reports Devastation linked to global warming