Kerry's Response

My heart sank when I heard John Kerry say he would have voted for the resolution giving the Resident authority to attack Iraq, even knowing what he knows today. Rob, over at Emphasis Added, cogently states many of my objections to this statement, but I'm still wondering why Kerry would give this answer.

I have two theories: 1)Kerry wants to appear consistent, in response to the charge that he flip-flops; (2) Kerry perceives the fall of Saddam as an unmitigated good.

The problem with that first possibility is, this is one issue on which Kerry can afford to flip-flop. For one thing, the way the question is framed allows for it: "Knowing what you know now, would you?" assumes a person might change his mind based on new information. For another, if Kerry had said he would have voted against it, he would have been in line with a majority of poll respondents, who have said they think our attack on Iraq was a mistake.

I disagree with candidate Kerry if he responded based on my second theory, that the fall of Saddam is an unmitigated good (regardless of the motivation). For one thing, it's an absurd statement to make until you see the result. So far, the result has not been positive. I can't predict what will happen come January 2005, but I wouldn't be surprised if civil war occurred within months of that date. For another, even if deposing Saddam is a positive, what gives America the right to take that action? Saddam clearly posed no threat to America, and precious little threat to America's allies. There is every reason to believe that inspections would have proven what we now suspect - no WMD - if GWB had not lost patience with the process.

As I have said any number of times, even if America is going to be the self-appointed policeman of the world, we've been damned inconsistent in how we enforce the "law". Saddam falls, but Kim Jon Ill is still in power. As are dictatorships as bad (or worse) all across the world. Meanwhile, the man who we claim is the evil mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks - Osama bin Laden - still runs free in south Pakistan.

Look, if having a baaaaad leader is grounds for invasion, what is preventing Canada or France from invading the U.S.? GWB, until very recently, has thumbed his nose at the concept that America might be a member of the world community (rather than its rightful king). His environmental policies harm the world. In another era, the treatment of foreign prisoners at Gitmo would be grounds for war. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens find more and more of their rights slipping away.

You know, based on GWB's logic, Canada or Britain really should invade the U.S. Save us poor benighted Yanks from ourselves.

How would I have responded to GWB's hypothetical question, if I had been John Kerry? With an unqualified "no". Which I would then follow with the recognition that we are there, it's our mess, and we are likely to bear the brunt of fixing it. Well, it might be politically expedient to leave out that final truth. Regardless, I believe the foundation of a solution for Iraq is two-fold: employment and restoration of basic services. Require Halliburton, et al, to hire Iraqis to do the work of rebuilding their own country. Support home-grown efforts to improve the situation. In terms of security, law enforcement is more needed than military force; therefore, continue to work with other countries to train an independent Iraqi police force. Get those men and women on the streets as soon as possible.

The answer is not strength of arms, Senator Kerry. The answer is electricity and water, and food, and the assurance that one can walk the streets safely.