Senator John Forbes Kerry is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. He offers voters very little choice on the single most important issue the presidential candidates will debate this election season. Kerry has failed to articulate a clear, compelling plan for how he plans to win the war in Iraq and protect the US from terrorism. This inability to make an impression on the minds of American voters is evidenced by a recent CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll showing that while the majority of Americans believe sending troops to Iraq was a mistake, when asked who they trust with the nation’s foreign policy, the majority picks Bush over Kerry. Not exactly a winning strategy for a challenger seeking to stand out as a strong, proven leadership alternative to the “war president.”
Kerry’s vague generalities about internationalizing the situation in Iraq and rebuilding old alliances are simply inadequate. He has criticized the Bush administration while simultaneously promising to keep US troops in Iraq at least until, what would be, the fourth year of his first term (2008). Historically, Kerry’s record on defense issues is very weak. The Democratic Convention, later this month, is Kerry’s opportunity to establish his identity with the electorate as something other than “Bush Lite” when it comes to Iraq and the war on terror. He has a lot of work to do.
Articulating a vision for the presidential campaign is not much better across party lines.
President Bush’s vision for the future of the country, and in particular for those Americans at risk of life and limb – the 165,000 US soldiers and Marines deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan – are vaguely summed-up in the president’s request that voters reelect him so he can make the nation "safer and stronger and better." It does not really go much beyond that.
I am certain Karl Rove, his operatives and the party apparatus will gin something else up in time for the GOP convention in New York. As the incumbent, the election is Bush’s to lose, so given the president’s eloquence, maybe the less said the better as far as Karl and the kids are concerned. Whatever they dream up in the way of a policy agenda – it hopefully will not entail any additional drunken sailor spending on budget-busting discretionary programs further increasing the ballooning deficit. You remember, the one VP Cheney claims “doesn’t matter.”
Let’s stick to what the Bush/Cheney team believes is their strong suit: national security. The Bush Doctrine, as applied to Iraq, consisted of four elements: 1) The United States should act preemptively to prevent strikes on U.S. targets; 2) unilateral action (or with a select coalition) when traditional allies or the United Nations balk; 3) Iraq was the main battlefield in the global war on terrorism; and, 4) Iraq’s transformation into a new democracy would transform the region.
It’s not looking too good for the Bush Doctrine right now: 1) No WMD; 2) a phony “Coalition of the Willing” that’s collapsing in slow motion, with cautious, belated “help” from NATO allies; 3) Both US (9/11 Commission and Senate Intelligence Committee reports) and UK (Butler Report) reports that detail the intelligence failures behind the WMD humiliation, and forever explode the Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation myth; and 4) a sophisticated insurgency (including international jihadis) that threatens the interim Iraqi government and US troops, while regional Arab leaders become increasingly disillusioned with US leadership.
President Bush promises withdrawal, "As soon as democracy and stability are achieved." Translation: Never.
Don’t be too surprised; after all, President Bush is a man of his word:
“The most important thing for us is to find Osama bin Laden. It’s our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
George W. Bush President of the United States September 13, 2001
Six months later. . .
“I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
George W. Bush President of the United States March 13, 2002
So, it should not come as a shock when it’s pointed out that last spring the New York Times reported unnamed senior Bush administration officials as saying a “new relationship with Iraq” would grant the US permanent access to four bases: at the Baghdad international airport, at Tallil near Nassiriya in the south, at the H-1 airstrip in western Iraq, and at the Bashur airfield in the Kurdish north. After all, democracy and stability have to be achieved, right?
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld quickly denied the permanent basing report, but quite frankly, that means nothing. Secretary Rumsfeld has repeatedly proven he is not to be believed – especially on “sticky” matters such as: Osama bin Laden, WMD, torture, civilian casualties, “enemy combatants,” and legal due process.
Senator Kerry could set himself apart from President Bush by expressly renouncing the Bush Doctrine and calling for a return to the Powell Doctrine. For those who dropped the Powell Doctrine down the “memory hole,” essentially, the Powell Doctrine expresses: 1) that military action should be used only as a last resort and only when there is a direct threat to national security by the intended target; 2) the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the enemy’s force; 3) there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and, 4) and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.
By calling for a return to the Powell Doctrine, Kerry can offer a previously accepted, proven US policy alternative to the American people. Adopting the Powell Doctrine at this point would plausibly allow an acceleration of our withdrawal from Iraq, based, in part, upon the notion that the American public was misled by the Bush administration about WMD, Iraqi collaboration with al Qaeda, and the broader objectives of Bush’s neocon handlers. This approach would also be consistent with some of Kerry’s vague language about internationalization.
On April 9, 1999, Candidate George W. Bush criticized President Clinton’s Kosovo policies by saying: “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” If only President Bush would live up to his own words. If only Senator Kerry could come up with an original idea. This November, American voters are faced with a terribly grim choice: Bush or Bush Lite.
July 22, 2004
