Kerry and Bush, same incoherence

News & Analysis: Kerry and Bush, same incoherence

electronicIraq.net

News & Analysis

Kerry and Bush, same incoherence

Ali Abunimah, Electronic Iraq

29 April 2004

Kerry on Iraq: a new direction for America or more of the same? Still from John Kerry TV ad "Fought for His Country." Image: Electronic Iraq

Senator John Kerry, the Democratic challenger to President George Bush has emerged by default as the rallying point for Americans alarmed by the growing chaos and violence in Iraq. In stump speeches around the country, Kerry has proclaimed his plan to "win the peace in Iraq," but despite his grandiosity and apparent self-confidence, it does not add up to anything more coherent than the current Bush policy.

Superficially, Kerry appears to be making a sharp attack on Bush. His official campaign website says the Democrat will "level with the American people." This means saying frankly that "the security situation is deteriorating and dangerous." Kerry says, "we should stop sugar-coating what’s going on in Iraq. Our troops know how bad it is there. It doesn’t help them for the White House to suggest we are making so much progress when we are not."

But Americans already know this. Polls consistently show a majority thinks Bush does not have a clear plan to deal with Iraq, and a recent Fox News poll found that 55 percent thought that the war is not going well for the US, as opposed to 42 percent who thought it is.

So what does Kerry have to offer? The main points of his plan differ very little from the policy Bush set out in his 13 April prime-time news conference. Kerry wants to increase US troops on the ground because "We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply can’t allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism." The key assumption behind this strategy is the highly questionable one that the United States can succeed in Iraq as long as it 'stays the course'.

At the same time, Kerry proposes according to his website, to "Launch a Diplomatic Strategy that will Work." This consists of affirming that he "supports the plan outlined by UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi." Such a plan has not yet been unveiled, though at his press conference Bush also publicly placed his confidence in whatever Brahimi might conjure up. Other elements of Kerry's plan include working for a new UN Security Council resolution backing the transition, and getting the Iraqi Governing Council to sign on to a future Brahimi plan. It's hard to find much distinction from Bush.

Finally, Kerry proposes to "Transform [the] U.S. Force into a NATO Security Force Commanded by an American, and Bring in Other Countries." This is an occasion to sharpen his criticism of Bush, with the claim that, "The whole world has an interest in a stable Iraq, but the White House hasn’t demonstrated the ability to bring in our friends and allies in a substantial way."

What Kerry's plan boils down to then is this: he is more charming than Bush. Many would agree, but this is a thin basis to assume that he will be able to persuade Iraqis, Europeans or other Arabs to risk their lives to save the United States' skin. Kerry's quick endorsement of Bush's assurance to Ariel Sharon that the United States supports Israel's annexation of the West Bank and opposes Palestinian refugees' right of return, guarantees that any honeymoon President Kerry has in the Arab world would be brief.

Kerry's political dilemma is clear. He wants to capitalize on the growing disquiet about the war but not seem unpatriotic by undermining US troops in the field. Therefore, Kerry can never admit that the strategies he supports are already obsolete.

What he can't tell Americans is that insufficient forces are not the problem. Consider Falluja: after two weeks of frequently-broken ceasefires, US commanders in rare direct consultation with the White House decided not to renew their full-scale offensive on the besieged city. According to the Washington Post, the decision was taken "in order to avoid a military incursion that could entail urban combat, civilian casualties and a wave of retributive strikes outside Fallujah, further poisoning relations between Iraqis and US occupation forces."

One of the baseless myths of the Vietnam war is that it was lost because the military 'had one arm tied behind its back' by politicians in Washington. Now it is happening for real. In such a situation, where the US is paralyzed militarily and politically, its position can only weaken as the resistance gains confidence and support.

Kerry cannot say that in the current situation a new UN Security Council resolution -- which the Bush administration is also seeking -- is just words on paper that will not induce any sane government to follow Tony Blair and defeated Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar into the deadly quagmire of Iraq. What would have had value before the invasion (the Holy Grail of a second resolution authorizing war) is worthless now. But given the political constraints Kerry is operating under, he cannot make a real critique of the war and he should not be mistaken for an anti-war candidate.

Without sounding like a defeatist, Kerry cannot acknowledge a live possibility: that there may be no chance for a dignified exit from Iraq, and the United States may have no influence on what happens in Iraq the day after its forces leave, whether they leave now or in five years time. The only real choice may be how high a price Americans want to pay for that knowledge.

So Kerry must continue to claim that Bush is making mere mistakes of tactics that only he as a decorated Vietnam veteran and newcomer untainted by the decision to go to war can fix. Even this is weak, given that for expedient political reasons (fearing being on the losing side if the Iraq gamble was a winner) he voted in the Senate to authorize the war in October 2002. Kerry may have calculated that this is the only way to beat Bush, because Americans are not ready to face up to the possibility that young men are dying for nothing. This may be sound campaign strategy, but it is not good leadership.

The irony here is that the presidential campaign is itself a factor limiting debate on some of the most crucial issues facing the American people, including the occupation of Iraq. It may be the tragedy of US politics that no one can say that the war is lost until popular revulsion at a stream of flag-draped coffins coming back from Iraq, makes that conclusion unavoidable.

Ali Abunimah is a co-founder of Electronic Iraq. A version of this article first appeared in The Daily Star on 28 April 2004.

---