Kerry's Vietnam Cut And Run
By JayReding Posted in War — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
John Kerry has written about his plans for Iraq and, unsurprisingly, they are based in a worldview that is hopelessly mired in the pre-September 11 world. Kerry's foreign policy is a policy based on utter naïvete and wishful thinking and demonstrates Kerry's utter fecklessness in the war on terrorism.
Kerry's first argument:
I know what our troops go through when they carry an M-16 in a dangerous place and can't tell friend from foe.
I know what they go through when they are out on patrol at night and don't know what's coming around the next bend.
I know what it is like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right when you're not sure that's true.
You mean Kerry served in Vietnam? Really?! I had no idea!
Kerry's constant allusions to his military service in Vietnam (despite being there less than a year) has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face. You can always tell instantly when Kerry is about to say something idiotic, as he feels the instinctive need to preface it by saying how he served in Vietnam. In poker, we call that a tell...
As president, I will never send troops into battle without the right equipment or a plan to win the peace. I will bring back our nation's time-honored tradition: The United States never goes to war because we want to. We only go to war because we have to.
Kerry voted no on giving the troops the equipment and supplies they needed. An act even he said was reckless and irresponsible. So much for that plan.
And again, the Kerry Doctrine: when a city is flattened, we'll do something about it. Maybe. If the UN says yes.
By the time we have to go to war, thousands of Americans would be dead. A city could be a smouldering ember. Anthrax patients could be flooding hospitals and overwhelming our medical infrastructure. Shopping malls could end up looking like charnel houses from the explosions of multiple suicide bombers. Then we'd have to go to war.
It is fundamentally irresponsible to argue that one should wait to be hit first before dealing with those who have repeatedly pledged to wipe you off the face of the earth. The costs in terms of human lives and the economic devastation would be horrendous. The attacks of September 11 drained an estimated $1.2 trillion from the economy. How much would something larger do? What would be the effects on everything from the travel industry to finance if a dirty bomb left Times Square contaminated for months, even years?
The Kerry Doctrine is the single most asinine policy ever put into place, a complete and utter abrogation of necessary responsibility in protecting the American homeland, and reason in and of itself to see that John Kerry doesn't end up as President.
But Kerry keeps topping himself:
I will meet our sacred commitment to our brave troops in Iraq — to end their mission successfully and bring them home as soon as possible. At stake is whether Iraq will complete its march to democracy or degenerate into the next proving ground for terrorists.
The single bone Kerry throws to the idea of finishing the mission in Iraq. But as we'll see, his idea of what it will take to "complete the march to democracy" is hopelessly and utterly naïve.
My plan is to:
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.
Here's where Kerry is completely clueless. Does he honestly think "leaders" (and I use the term loosely) like Jacques Chirac or Gerhardt Shröder who are already seeing increased political pressure against them back home will suddenly change course and embrace involvement in a conflict that is absolutely despised back home?
Does Kerry really believe that years of anti-Americanism are just all about Bush? The EU has long stated that it has the express goal of reducing US power in the world. Does Kerry want to argue that an expanded NATO presence in Iraq wouldn't come with some very dubious strings attached?
That assumes, of course, that NATO would be able to supply significant numbers of troops. Given that the EU has precious little force-projection ability and European troops have issues with following American orders, not to mention the inability of NATO troops to protect Albanians from Serb agression in Kosovo, relying on NATO to fix the problems in Iraq is at best wishful thinking.
Even then, that makes the assumption that NATO wants to help in Iraq in any significant way. The French government doesn't want to get involved in Iraq and Germany also does not want to send troops to Iraq with any significant numbers. At that point, that NATO committment would include countries that are already with us in Iraq. Kerry's NATO committment would consist of ink on a page rather than boots on the ground.
Internationalize the reconstruction efforts in Iraq to end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation and help coordinate the rebuilding.
The old "unilateral" canard. How much more international can the reconstruction get when countries from nearly every part of the world are involved? Or is it, as many of Kerry's critics content, that Kerry's definition of "international" consists of "inclusive of France and Germany"? Given that Kerry cannot seem to bring himself to acknowledge the contributions of our allies in Iraq, his plan is already in the status quo.
• 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.
Again, Kerry seems entirely unable and unwilling to name one other nation that is able and willing to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq that isn't already there. Given what we know about the current situation with NATO, hoping that they bail us out is simply foolish. Neither France nor Germany want to do so and have every interest in making things worse for us. Kerry's ideological blinders are clearly obscuring reality when it comes to his position on Iraq.
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.
Yes, an international conference to get Iran and Syria to agree to Iraqi sovereignty would be just as effective as the agreements that they will stop being state supporters of terrorism or that Iran will stop reprocessing uranium for nuclear weapons. Kerry's view is simply naïve given the realities that these countries are deathly afraid that a democratic Iraq will increase the building pressures for reform in their own countries. Any piece of paper in which Syria and Iran agree to respect Iraq's borders wouldn't be worth anything without vigorous enforcement - and it has already become quite clear that neither the EU nor NATO nor the UN have any interest or ability to create such conditions.
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.
If by "realistic" Kerry means "hopeless naï and simplistic" then yes, it is. Elsewise it demonstrates that Kerry is complete feckless on issues of security. He's putting all his eggs in one basket, a basket being held by Jacques Chirac and Gerhardt Shröder. Arguing that we can count on a group of allies who have already expressed a desire to see America fail in rebuilding Iraq is simply a dumb idea.
Kerry's plans for Iraq are to pass everything off to our allies and wash our hands of the whole thing. Three decades ago Kerry advocated a similar policy in Vietnam - the results being the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge and millions dead or displaced. We cannot afford to make the same mistake once again, and Kerry clearly has shown that he is pathologically unable to learn from his own mistakes.
Update [2004-8-9 8:7:38 by JayReding]: See Tacitus' piece which shows more on why Kerry's Iraq strategy is doomed to failure.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Kerry's retreat-from-Iraq plan: DOA — Comments (4) »
Kerry's Vietnam Cut And Run 6 Comments (0 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
does not mean "perfect world achieved." Most Americans know this (I think).
Mission Accomplished means Iraqis and Marines working together to tear down statues of Saddam Hussein.
That's all it has to mean. Mission Accomplished could mean one successful air raid. Mission Accomplished could mean neutralizing one specific Iraqi threat.
Missions are as large or as small as one defines them to be.
This is hardly an issue.
John
More money in the Trolls For Bandwidth fund, and another dollar goes in my personal pot to the Bush/Cheney campaign.
Besides, it's not as if the crew of the Lincoln were sailing home from combat after destroying the Hussein regime. Nope, not at all. Why when Bush appeared in front of that banner he was saying that the war was over, there was nothing left to do and there would be kittens, sunshine, and free lemonade for everyone for ever and ever. He certainly never said:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.
The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
Nor did he say:
Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.
The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.
Nope, he said the war would be over and everyone could go home.
Now get lost.
posted at the same time dealing with the same subject, where to comment, what to do...
RedState - Turning Trolls Into Bandwidth
Welcome to the RedState "Turning Trolls Into Bandwidth" Project. As you know, RedState has an active and vibrant community of posters and commenters. Then there are trolls. If we learned anything from the Dean campaign (other than Iowa caffeine is waaay strong) is that a community can help keep the trolls away by donating every time they disrupt the conversation. So, you can help "Turn Trolls Into Bandwidth." Every dollar donated through this page will directly go towards supporting RedStates growing bandwitdth expenses.
Kerry captained a swift boat with honor...here is what George Bush does on boats:
George W. Bush made the biggest mistake of his reelection aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
It was that sign. High above the deck, in plain view for the world to see, George and his stage hands laid it all down in one two-word phrase:
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."
It is sinful to be arrogant after the treachery of war. Worse is to be arrogant -- and wrong.
"Mission Accomplished," huh? Bill Clinton would have locked on this like an F-14 Tomcat in a dogfight. Bob Dole helped Clinton define the '96 election by describing his vision to harken back to the days of old, to "build a bridge" backwards to a bygone era in America. Dubya has done this for his opponenets, if played correctly, and offensively. Somebody pass out the smelling salts to Terry, Nancy amd Tom. It's time to go to work.
"Mission Accomplished?" Try telling that to the American families whose sons have died in Iraq since that rash, boastful and absolutely false declaration.
"Mission accomplished?" Try explaining that to the families whose beloved armed servicemen are heading BACK to the gulf.
"Mission accomplished?" Try telling that to our armed civil affairs troops risking their lives in a nation building effort when they could be back home rebuilding the home communities they love.
"Mission Accomplished?" Is that what Bush meant about Al Qaeda no longer being a problem -- just before it killed nine Americans in Saudi Arabia days later?
"Mision Accomplished?" Where's Osama? Where's Saddam. The WMDs?
"Mission Accomplished?" How does that fit in with the fact that Al Qaeda has newly partnered with Baath Party holdouts in daily attacks on our troops?
"Mission Accomplished?" Americans should give the presidency to someone whose proven accomplishments can pull us out of the situation this president is creating for his own poitical gain: "Mission Impossible."
And we have so much to accomplish: education, health care, prescription drugs, jobs. And that's without a full review of whether the Iraq mission has emboldened the enemy or created new ones.
But I guess that's what we get when we let a National Guard deserter pretend he's a real military airman. I always questioned his wisdom, but now I know he's a fool. He is derelict, which is defined by Webster as "a ship deserted at sea."
Patriotically,
Unclesam