Iraq solutions, and why I support John Kerry for president
Saturday, August 14th, 2004Fred Kaplan’s excellent article in Slate identifies the American military’s current quandary in Iraq and proposes a few ideas for securing the peace. His outlook is bleak.
Meanwhile, the U.S. military—the only force in Iraq remotely capable of keeping the country from falling apart—finds itself in a maddening situation where tactical victories yield strategic setbacks. The Marines could readily defeat the insurgents in Najaf, but only at the great risk of inflaming Shiites—and sparking still larger insurgencies—elsewhere.
So in a climate in which each military victory like the one witnessed at Najaf is a strategic defeat in the larger war to win hearts and minds, how exactly does the U.S. win? Kaplan readily acknowledges his suggestions—which include dividing Iraq into a loose three-state federation or providing nations like France and Russia lucrative oil contract incentives to join in securing the peace—are likely to fail. Read the article for a full accounting of his ideas, it’s not that long.
The article got me thinking about American electoral politics. There was a lengthy and entertaining argument on [hdjunk] recently that wasn’t about any one subject in particular but managed to bring out a lot of Bush-hate and second-guessing about Iraq (the Blogbot editorial staff, not surprisingly, was not above it all). Toward the end of the argument, the Bush haters were challenged to provide reasons why they endorsed John Kerry. Frank offered a very cogent summary of why he supports Kerry (a summary so cogent it ended the conversation, unfortunately). Under bullet point #3, "Education and Reasoning," Frank had this to say:
I think Kerry is a more organized thinker judging from his public appearances and speeches. I place value on this personally, but i can understand someone else might prefer someone who relies on faith or instinct more.
So after thinking of Kaplan’s article in terms of election year politics, I thought of this point of Frank’s. I acknowledge that in the end neither Bush nor Kerry may be able to secure the peace in Iraq; it really isn’t one man’s responsibility to so, so when I speak of "Bush" or "Kerry" I’m really speaking of the cumulative work of their staffs and the foreign policy ideologies that guide these officials. The U.S. military faces what appears to be an intractable situation in Iraq. Unless one looks to rough comparisons like V*****m or the low-grade proxy warfare the U.S. waged in Latin America in the 70s and 80s, there really is little historical precedent for how to accomplish what the U.S. needs to accomplish in Iraq.
The question for me, then, is which politician is more equipped to think of new solutions for this problem? I see very little in the way of non-traditional or creative thought from the Bush administration in working to end this conflict. I see an administration equipped to think about and prosecute a war in very traditional, undebateable terms. Kerry has indicated a willingness to work outside of the Bush administration’s self-imposed boundaries, by re-establishing foreign alliances. Quite frankly, that’s not nearly enough. But it’s a start. Faith and instinct got us into this war, but only organized, creative thinking will get the U.S. and the Iraqi people out of it now. John Kerry is more likely to provide that quality of leadership.
