Memo to John Kerry: It's this easy

You know, New York Times columnist David Brooks is a pretty intelligent guy, and he writes very well. I will never forget his theory that if Martians came briefly to earth to study mankind by observing a Central Park playground for a couple of hours, they would conclude human beings begin life small and white but grow up to become large Jamaican women.

But along with his colleague William Safire (who regularly interviews Richard Nixon from beyond the grave...), I'm not entirely sure he's firmly grounded in the same reality that you and I are in. Despite that, he's one of the sharper conservative minds out there (I'm trying to resist the urge to say there's not much competition...) and his column from today gives us a pretty good look at how the GOP hopes to discredit Kerry's foreign policy stance.

However, watch how I rip his assault to shreds with my meager military experience (well, Cub Scouts for 2 years, plus some Army recruiters tried to get me interested in the service in Colorado in 1999) and my extensive foreign policy background (10.5 months in Switzerland, with side trips to France (5 days), Italy (5 days) and Germany (4 days), 17 days in London, 10 days in Venice, a month in Japan, a weekend in Victoria, B.C., and about two hours in Algodones, Mexico) not to mention my extensive political studies (bachelor's and master's degrees in Voice from Manhattan School of Music, and I saw Fahrenheit 9/11).

See Brooks' column in its original format here.

September 21, 2004

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Finally, Kerry Takes a Stand
By DAVID BROOKS

DB: Yesterday John Kerry came to New York University and did something amazing. He uttered a series of clear, declarative sentences on the subject of Iraq. Many of these sentences directly contradict his past statements on Iraq, but at least you could figure out what he was trying to say.

Andy: You know, this is one of those falsehoods that the Bush Administration and his campaign have repeated so often that people have just begun to accept it as true. "Flip-flop!" they cry, when the barest glance at recent history shows that Bush is going to go down as the flip-floppingest President we've ever had. From steel tariffs to nation-building, from opposing the creation of a Homeland Security Department to refusing to allow Condoleeza Rice to testify before the 9/11 Commission (the creation of which he opposed), to counting his 23 different rationales for the occupation of Iraq and so much, much more, this President has taken one stand after another and then buckled under the political pressure from the public outcry. Then, after his 180 degree policy shift, he claims that he supported whatever idea it was all along and, without exception, takes credit for the idea. This follows a pattern he established as Governor of Texas. While campaigning for the presidency in 2000, he touted the passage of a bill of patients' rights as a hallmark of his leadership. He forgot to mention that the Texas Legislature passed it over his veto. I don't see how you're allowed to take credit for something you vetoed, but Bush managed to do it. Now, as far as the charge that Kerry's Iraq positions have run from one end of the political spectrum to the other goes, that's a gross oversimplification. For a great explanation of what Kerry's position has been on Iraq, and how Bush has twisted it to his advantage, check out William Saletan's August 12 column in Slate.

DB: First, Kerry argued that Iraq was never a serious threat to the United States, that the war was never justified and that Bush's focus on Iraq was a "profound diversion" from the real enemy, Osama bin Laden.

Andy: Well...yes. Let's see. No weapons. No weapons programs. No stockpiles of chemical or biological agents that could be used to make weapons. No facilities that could be used for the creation of such weapons without massive overhaul. No systems for delivery. Hussein never threatened the United States. No proven ties to al Qaeda. So yeah, I'd call that not much of a threat. Since we began our war in Iraq, al Qaeda has attacked in Spain and Indonesia, and we're told daily that they have designs on disrupting our election. We've got what, 130,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq, trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to restore order. The New York Times described the situation this way today: "it's hard to identify any major urban areas outside Kurdistan where the U.S. and its allies exercise effective control. Insurgents operate freely, even in the heart of Baghdad, while coalition forces, however many battles they win, rule only whatever ground they happen to stand on." Meanwhile, according to what I can tell, there are about 9,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan, which by anyone's standard is not a safe place to be these days. Just a few days ago, Hamid Karzai made his first campaign trip outside of Kabul, but the helicopter he was travelling in had to abort its landing and fly back because someone fired a rocket at it. The Taliban still effectively control the entire southern half of the country, and tribal warlords control everything else outside of Kabul. And somewhere out there, presumably, is Osama bin Laden. Might the situation have been different in Afghanistan if we'd sent 130,000 troops there, instead?

DB: Second, Kerry argued that we are losing the war in Iraq. Casualties are mounting, the insurgency is spreading, and daily life is more miserable.

Andy: Well, I try to avoid redundancy, so...see above. Then add the part about the mounting casualties, the spreading insurgency and the miserable daily life and...yeah, we're losing.

DB: Third, Kerry argued that in times like this, brave leaders should tell the truth to the American people. Kerry reminded his audience that during Vietnam, he returned home "to offer my own personal voice of dissent," and he's decided to do the same thing now. The parallel is clear: Iraq is the new Vietnam.

Andy: Yeah, that part about brave leaders telling the truth, that might be nice for a change.

DB: Finally, Kerry declared that it is time to get out, beginning next summer. The message is that if Kerry is elected, the entire momentum of U.S. policy will be toward getting American troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible and shifting responsibility for Iraq onto other countries.

Andy: Okay. Hold on. This is where we start spinning. Kerry is not advocating withdrawal. This is not a cut and run strategy. This is a plan to start dealing with the personnel crisis that we are facing. The National Guard was created to defend us here at home. Just ask President Bush. Yet a lot of the soldiers dying over there are guard boys, who thought they were doing their country a favor by volunteering their service a few days a month close to home. Now they're stuck. Troop rotations are being altered so that these guys are staying abroad longer and spending less time at home. Units getting ready for a Stateside break are told at the last minute that they have to stay. Troops are being withdrawn from Korea -- let's remember that Pyongyang actually does have nuclear capability -- and redployed in the Middle East. Soldiers who thought they had completed their tours of duty are being forced to go back. They want to come home, and their families want them back. John Kerry wants to get more foreign troops in there so that the American soldiers can come home. It's not about "shifting a burden," it's requesting help for what I'm sure you'd agree is a noble cause. Neither is the goal of bringing troops home from Iraq the "entire momentum" of Kerry's foreign policy. He wants to work toward increased international cooperation so that we can do this job more effectively.

DB: The crucial passage in the speech was this one: "The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: we must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden." From a U.S. responsibility, Iraq will become the world's responsibility.

Andy: Didn't Bush try to argue that Iraq was the world's responsibility back in 2002? This all began because, ostensibly, Iraq was in material breach of U.N. Resolution #1441. Bush went before the world community at the United Nations and basically said, "Hey, come on guys. You established these rules, and this guy is breaking them. They're your rules, why aren't you doing anything about it?" Bush keeps saying the world is a safer place. It's not just about us, or at least, it wasn't supposed to be. How can you criticize John Kerry for wanting to bring the rest of the world back on board?

DB: Kerry said the United Nations must play a central role in supervising elections. He said other nations should come in to protect U.N. officials. He called for an international summit meeting this week in New York, where other nations could commit troops and money to Iraq. He said NATO should open training centers for new Iraqi soldiers.

Andy: And these ideas are bad because...?

He talked about what other nations could do to help address the situation in Iraq. He did not say what the U.S. should do to defeat the insurgents and stabilize and rebuild Iraq, beyond what Bush is already doing. He did not say the U.S. could fight the insurgents more effectively. He did not have any ideas on how to tame Falluja or handle Moktada al-Sadr. He did not offer any strategy for victory.

Andy: John Kerry's strategy for victory is winning the election, sending Bush back to Texas, and re-staffing the Department of Defense, the State Department and the Pentagon with confident, experienced people who aren't fatally shackled to an impossible ideology and who are going to turn this thing around. Contrary to what Bush would have us believe, the insurgents in Iraq are not "terr'rists" who "hate freedom." David, their country is under foreign occupation. More than 10,000 Iraqi civilians have died, and thousands more are wounded and suffering; probably millions are grieving. Employment is at 50%, and public utilities still aren't functioning as well as they did before our invasion. Of the $18 billion that was approved for reconstruction projects, only $1 billion has been spent, and just recently Bush approved shifting some of the reconstruction budget over to security. These guys aren't dumb. They're angry at Bush for the way he brought their country to ruin based on a pack of egregious lies and exaggerations and they're angry because he has failed to fulfill his promises to them with regard to restoration. And just as the Iraqi people don't want to be held accountable for the crimes of Saddam Hussein, they probably don't hold the average American responsible for the hubris of George Bush. They will if we re-elect him. A win for John Kerry will restore Americans' credibility around the globe. How do we stop Moktada al-Sadr and calm the situation in Fallujah? Make an example of the US soldiers who tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib and turn them over to the International Criminal Court to be tried for crimes against humanity. Get the electricty on and keep it on. Get clean water to people. Fix the sewage that clogs the city streets. Do something to actually improve these people's lives. You have falsely stated John Kerry's position when you say he hasn't proposed anything beyond what Bush is doing. Kerry is proposing to do what Bush has also proposed to do, but hasn't.

DB: But he did, more than at any time in the past year, stake out a clear contrast with Bush.
The president's case is that the world is safer with Saddam out of power, and that we should stay as long as it takes to help Iraqis move to democracy. Kerry's case is that the world would be safer if we'd left Saddam; his emphasis is on untangling the United States from Iraq and shifting attention to more serious threats.

Andy: The only people who ever suggested that the only choice was between war and leaving Saddam Hussein to do whatever he damn well pleased were guys like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Kerry never ever said we should have just let Saddam be. Even Howard Dean never said that. But is it not even remotely conceivable to you that there might have been another way? That there was an option that maybe didn't involve sending 1,000 Americans to their death? Kerry, and everyone else, agrees that it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is in custody. But frankly, wouldn't you rather have Osama bin Laden instead? Kerry would also agree that we should stay in Iraq as long as is necessary to help move the country to democracy. He's just going to make policy decisions that will actually get us there. And yes, let's disentangle ourselves from Iraq as soon as possible and start dealing with North Korea and al Qaeda.

DB: Rhetorically, this was his best foreign policy speech by far (it helps to pick a side). Politically, it was risky. Kerry's new liberal tilt makes him more forceful on the stump, but opens huge vulnerabilities. Does he really want to imply that 1,000 troops died for nothing?
By picking the withdrawal camp, he has assigned himself a clear task. Right now 54 percent of likely voters believe that the U.S. should stay as long as it takes to rebuild Iraq, while 39 percent believe that we should leave as soon as possible. Between now and Nov. 2, Kerry must flip those numbers.

Andy: Well, given the way the Bush campaign has worked so hard to paint Kerry as an out of touch liberal extremist, it's hard to swallow your charge that he's tilted further to the left. I mean, in that case, he must be practically horizontal by now. I'd better take a look back at the photos of the address and make sure he wasn't reclining on his left side on a chaise longue. Hyperbole aside, given the overwhelming body of evidence that this war was based on a false premise and that the reconstruction has been catastrophically mismanaged -- and several Republican Congressmen are beginning to say the same thing -- what's wrong with wanting to turn things around over there? I mean, if restoring order to a war-torn country is a "liberal" position, what kind of nutcase is voting conservative? John Kerry is most certainly NOT implying that our brave servicemen and women are dying for nothing; but I'll come right out and say that if we don't radically change our course, they will have died for a lie and an insidious betrayal.

And again, you've misrepresented entirely Kerry's position with regard to withdrawal. Kerry agrees we need to see this through. But what's wrong with wanting to bring the troops home as soon as possible? Is it more patriotic to want them to stay longer? You're not even making sense, now.

DB: Substantively, of course, Kerry's speech is completely irresponsible. In the first place, there is a 99 percent chance that other nations will not contribute enough troops to significantly decrease the U.S. burden in Iraq. In that case, John Kerry has no Iraq policy. The promise to bring some troops home by summer will be exposed as a Disneyesque fantasy.

Andy: First, no one who is ostensibly defending the Bush Administration should be leveling charges of irresponsibility. Abu Ghraib. Forged documents about Nigerian uranium in the State of the Union Address. Boasts by the President to the press, "We've found them; we've found weapons of mass destruction." August 6, 2001: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S." Second, there is a 99% chance you made up that statistic. These other nations do not want to work with Bush, because he won't compromise and refuses to acknowledge reality. With Kerry in control, you bet we'll get increased international cooperation. Third, since Bush does not intend to get foreign assistance anyway, how does he propose to bring the troops home? And if you want to talk Disneyesque fantasies, just listen to him talk about Iraq's upcoming elections as if it's a new thrill ride opening soon. Trust me, you'll love it.

DB: More to the point, Kerry is trying to use multilateralism as a gloss for retreat. If "the world" is going to be responsible for defeating Moktada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then no one will be responsible for defeating them. The consequences for the people of Iraq and the region will be horrific.

Andy: Let me get this straight: If everyone is responsible, no one is responsible? Well, let's go back to Gulf War I. We got a lot of help there. We achieved our goal. Sorry, David, your analogy isn't holding up to historical precedent.

DB: Finally, if the whole war is a mistake, shouldn't we stop fighting tomorrow? What do you say to the last man to die for a "profound diversion"?

Andy: Yes. We should stop fighting. But that doesn't mean we should come home. We broke it, we bought it. We have got to put Iraq back together again. And if the international community doesn't want to help, so be it. After all, they warned us. They told us this was a bad idea. They told us exactly what would happen. The American people, by and large, refused to question the rush to war at the critical juncture. They will now be called upon to pay for -- literally -- that mistake. With Bush in charge, I can guarantee that the cost to the American taxpayers will only increase. If you want lower taxes in the long run, you need to vote Democrat now.

And as for asking what you say to the last man to die, this question needs to be directed at George W. Bush, not John Kerry.

DB: But that is what the next few weeks are going to be about. This country has long needed to have a straight up-or-down debate on the war. Now that Kerry has positioned himself as the antiwar candidate, it can.

Andy: Well, I think it's going way too far to call John Kerry "the anti-war candidate," but other than that, yes. I agree wholeheartedly. Let's have this debate. David, you are a New York Times columnist with -- correct me if I'm wrong -- four books published. I'm a musician who works temp jobs answering phones and making spreadsheets to pay the bills. If someone like me can dismantle your statements in one sitting, the GOP is in serious trouble.