"Look, I would rather talk about the war. The current one, I mean — not the one that ended three decades ago. But, insofar as I understand the rules of Campaign 2004, every time any member of the administration says anything about the present conflict, he is accused by Democrats of shamelessly "politicizing" it. Whereas every time John Kerry waxes nostalgic about those fragrant memories of the Mekong Delta, he should be allowed to take his unending stroll down memory lane unmolested. After all, as everyone from John Edwards to Max Cleland to Bill Clinton has assured us, being a Swift boat commander for four months is the indispensable qualification for being president. When Hillary runs in 2008, no doubt she'll be leaning heavily on her four months running a Swift boat up and down the Shatt al-Arab during the Iraq war.
But hang on, most of these fellows in the anti-Kerry ad — the ones talking about how he can't be trusted, etc — are also Swift boat commanders? If being a Swiftee is the most important thing in American life, why are all these "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" less entitled to be heard than John Kerry? "
Well, today there's also evidence that at least John Kerry's mind is actually stuck back in Vietnam, since the language in his editorial in USA Today has a four-point "plan" to "bring the troops home." (Remember that?) Let's look at his plan, point by point:
• Lead NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace there. NATO participation will open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.
The only problem with this is that France doesn't want to play. They've already vetoed a NATO mission in Afghanistan to help secure the elections there. The truth is that NATO is probably a soon to be dead alliance. Some of the countries within NATO are actively involved with the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. But because of French ego (they are mad because they aren't as important in international affairs as the U.S.), nothing will get decided there. It's a shadow reminiscent of the U.N.Security Council's problems in obtaining concensus.
• Internationalize the reconstruction efforts in Iraq to end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation and help coordinate the rebuilding.
Well, duh. Isn't that what is already happening there? How many countries are there right now, Mr. Kerry? Oh, I forgot--the French aren't, and that seems to be important to Kerry.
• Launch a massive and accelerated training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.
What exactly have we been doing, if not for rebuilding security forces? Other nations? Like which other nations? France, maybe? (Remember there are over 31 nations there already). As for NATO, see point one.
• Plan for Iraq's future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq's multibillion-dollar debt and involve our allies in the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. At the same time, we should convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's national affairs.
"Work with our allies"; "involve our allies" - see points two and three. As far as convening a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors--let's see. That would include Iran and Syria, right? And they would be willing to respect Iraq's borders, would they? How come they haven't so far? Oh, I get it. Sweet-talking John will convince them that its in their interest to have a democratic Iraq right next door. Yeah, right.
This is not an instant solution. There isn't one. But it's a realistic plan to share the burden and secure the peace and bring our troops home.
No, it's not an instant solution. It's the same general solution being pursued by the Bush Administration, with two exceptions: 1) France doesn't want to play; and 2) Iran and Syria are actively trying to destabilize Iraq and I don't think a "regional conference" to "secure their pledges to respect Iraq's borders" is a practical way of dissuading them from sending in their fighters.
I think what Kerry would like to do is Vietnam Redux (see picture below).
No comments:
Post a Comment