| A strange loop.
| |
| A strange loop.
| |
UnconvincedMichael Totten points to a serious case for voting for John Kerry if you are, for lack of a better term, a liberal hawk. The case is from Anne Cunningham of One-Sided Wonder, in three posts, here, here and here. It is a serious argument for Kerry, in a campaign where so far there have not been many such arguments, and it deserves to be addressed seriously.
First, I'd like to pull apart Ms. Cunningham's posts to group the related points together, and address each of these individually afterwards. Please note that as a result the context of the quotes might be slightly off. The "point" column is my distillation of the arguments. The "arguments" column is text from Ms. Cunningham's posts.
| Point | Arguments |
|---|---|
| 1. Bush is not worthy of the office of President because of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. | The more that comes out about Abu Ghraib and torture and unmuzzled dogs, the further out on a limb Bush seems to be. A few months ago he could have persuasively presented himself as the defender of civilization, the tough-minded liberator, but he abandoned that role, or compromised it so severely that this ground is now open territory. Bush/Hitler is, similarly, not going to be given the benefit of the doubt. (Especially when his team are, you know, stealing pages from the Nazi playbook and interrogating people using dogs.) |
| 2. The world will not see a Bush electoral defeat as a win for terrorism. | I used to have a similar worry [to Roger Simon's: If John Kerry is elected in November, it will be interpreted by the world as such a repudiation of the WoT it will make the electoral defeat in Spain seem like a student council defeat in Iowa.], but Bush himself has changed the meaning of the election. I don't think the election will really represent a repudiation of the main thrust of Bush policy. |
| 3. President Bush's policies are fine, but his execution is terrible. | [Kerry]'s not against the war on terror, or even the war in Iraq, so much as Bush's method of conducting these wars. Bush has validated Kerry's hesitation and concern. [A]lthough I supported the war, I don't think all of Bush's principles are sound. We are fighting a propaganda war as well as a military one, and in that sense "bad execution" encroaches on principle. It does so because bad execution here really amounts to bad faith. |
| 4. A new administration is more likely to be able to win the goodwill of Iraqis. | Our legitimacy in Iraq is at a low ebb, much of the goodwill from the removal of Saddam having been squandered. A new administration can take a fresh approach with the various parties and factions in the country. |
| 5. The Bush administration is too close to Saudi Arabia; a Kerry administration would be tougher on the Saudis. | And a Kerry administration would have a much less cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia. Various Democratic policy makers already see the war on terror much more in terms of our problematic relations with allies like the Saudis and Pakistan, which are indeed likely to be trouble spots in the years to come. |
| 6. A Kerry administration would have as much credibility in fighting the Terror Wars as the Bush administration. | We issued an ultimatum, carried through on it, and the effects of that will last beyond this administration. Our hard power is not in question. Kerry would have to backtrack a lot to undo that. What he can add to it, though, is some serious soft-power cultivation. We have addressed the question of state sponsorship of terror, to the extent of getting rid of a potential sponsor and delivering a warning elsewhere. Kerry will be seen as having less political will on this score than Bush did, but I think the show of American resolve will still have effects beyond the current administration. |
| 7. "Soft power" is now more important than "hard power" in the remainder of the terror wars. | What [Kerry] can add to [Bush's use of military force], though, is some serious soft-power cultivation. We have addressed the question of state sponsorship of terror, to the extent of getting rid of a potential sponsor and delivering a warning elsewhere. Kerry will be seen as having less political will on this score than Bush did, but I think the show of American resolve will still have effects beyond the current administration. |
| 8. Kerry would be a more credible war leader domestically than President Bush. | For the last few weeks I have been thinking that there may be some Nixon in China quality to the War on Terror. Only instead of having enough tough credibility to be soft, it's the other way around. Is it that only someone who does not come off as a warmonger can rally the whole nation? |
| 9. President Bush and at least some of his cabinet are simply evil. [I don't regard this as a particularly serious point, but it needs to be addressed.] | I was thinking of this after reading Clarke's book, because I agreed with his portrait of John Ashcroft as a terrible Attorney General - in a symbolic sense, if nothing else. Whatever he is or is not doing under the Patriot Act, he is the wrong type to be in the role, because he has no natural affinity for civil rights. He doesn't seem to have too many internal checks on his behavior. Bush/Hitler is, similarly, not going to be given the benefit of the doubt. (Especially when his team are, you know, stealing pages from the Nazi playbook and interrogating people using dogs.) If I seem to be harping on the dog thing, it's because that combined with the sexual humiliation is so reminiscent of accounts I have read of Klaus Barbie's interrogation style that I cannot get past it. I realize that both methods were probably designed to touch on specific taboos of Islam, dogs being unclean to Muslims, &c. But still, it's so very very Klaus Barbie. |
| 10. Kerry's claims of waging the Terror Wars only with law enforcement and intelligence will not survive his coming into office. | I also think that Kerry will inevitably become more willing to use force once in office. It's when parties are out of power that they appear in their most dovish light. |
| 11. John Kerry is more realistic and more moderate than President Bush. | And good execution is not nothing. A Kerry administration would no doubt be less ideologically driven than the Bush team (given that several of his advisors are moderate Republicans), and so might have a more realistic picture of the challenges in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond. |
The overarching point of this case is that John Kerry, if elected President, would be better - or at least no worse - than President Bush at prosecuting the Terror Wars, and that we would not lose ground in the war in a Kerry administration. I'm not convinced. To show why, I'll address each point in order, then talk about one critical issue that remains unaddressed by Ms. Cunningham: character.
Point 1: President Bush is not worthy of the office of President because of the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
Ms. Cunningham's use of active language to relate President Bush to the Abu Ghraib scandal implies that President Bush was responsible for the offenses:
The more that comes out about Abu Ghraib and torture and unmuzzled dogs, the further out on a limb Bush seems to be. A few months ago he could have persuasively presented himself as the defender of civilization, the tough-minded liberator, but he abandoned that role, or compromised it so severely that this ground is now open territory.
So it would be fair to hold President Bush personally accountable for the Abu Ghraib offenses if either his policies allowed this behavior, or his enforcement was lax or non-existent. Have either of these occurred? Um, no.
President Bush was told by legal counsel that he could authorize torture for prisoners, because the Geneva Conventions and certain US laws don't apply in this case. Ignoring the soundness of the legal advice (some of it appears highly suspect, to say the least), the President accepted the legality of the advice but explicitly chose to not use torture. The President has taken a very firm policy stance that torture is unacceptable.
"Look, let me make very clear the position of my government and our country," Bush said Tuesday in the Oval Office."We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."
Bush's comments to reporters came as the White House released a raft of documents that administration officials say show there was no policy allowing the abuse of prisoners.
Bush accepted advice from the Justice Department that the Geneva Conventions governing treatment of prisoners of war did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan, but he ordered the military to follow the conventions "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity," according to one of the memos released by the White House.
"Our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," Bush wrote in the memo dated February 7, 2002. "Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles."
If there was no cover-up, was there a lack of enforcement? Again, no. The day after reporters were notified, and just three days after the beginning of the investigation, the prison commander was formally admonished (ending her chances of career advancement forever) and the commander of the MP battalion was relieved of his command. Investigations continued, and prosecutions began.
Perhaps the law was being evaded by picking low-level scapegoats and absolving the commanders? Again, no. Recently, a 4-star general was given charge of the investigation (taking over from a 2-star), which can only mean (under the military's rule against junior officers questioning a senior officer) that the entire CentCom command hierarchy is under investigation. It is likely that charges will be brought against at least one general officer, or this upgrade of rank would not have been necessary.
I see no way that President Bush, his administration or the military can be fairly accused of covering up the events, not enforcing the law, or picking scapegoats to avoid enforcing the law on anyone important.
I'm actually not going to take up the moral equivalence argument ("stealing pages from the Nazi playbook" and "it's so very very Klaus Barbie") until point 9, but I did want to point out here that it is clear that the President explicitly forbade any such methods from use, so absent any indication that the President granted an exception in this case or failed to enforce the law or policy, knowing there had been an offense, such an argument is reprehensible at best.
Point 2: The world will not see a Bush electoral defeat as a win for terrorism.
Yes, yes it will. The Spanish elections were seen as a clear win for the terrorists, as the new government pulled out of Iraq as quickly as it could (and awarded medals for bravery to the high-level commanders who co-ordinated the pullout!!), and leaving the field of battle to the enemy is a defeat by any standard.
Would a President Kerry leave Iraq to the enemy? It's unclear what he would do, because Kerry is in favor of every option, and against every option, depending on the day; but it is unlikely that Kerry would be able to pull out of Iraq in less than two or three years without being impeached, and it's unlikely that he would want to do so even if that were not the case.
But there are other ways in which a Kerry victory would be seen by the world (and many Americans) as a defeat in the war. For example, the terrorists and the world will conclude that the US does not have the will to win. Not only is that how we got into this mess in the first place, but a Kerry victory almost certainly would mean that the electorate lacks the will to win. Unless it can be shown that Kerry would be stronger on the war than President Bush, there is no other way to see it. And given his past actions, pronouncements and Senate votes, no reasonable person could conclude that Kerry is more devoted to agressive national defense than President Bush.
If "Bush himself has changed the meaning of the election" in regards to Abu Ghraib, it can only mean that any imperfection on our part - even if detected and punished - cancels out every other issue, including whether or not we win the war, instead of taking the Johnson approach of looking grave while ignoring the war, so as to focus on the "Great Society" instead. Well, we all know how that worked out. In any event, this statement by Ms. Cunningham can only be evaluated as saying that the US only deserves victory if we are perfect, which is clearly an impossible standard.
Moreover, while Ms. Cunningham may not "think the election will really represent a repudiation of the main thrust of Bush policy", the rest of the world will certainly see it as such. Kerry has already made so many statements (as well as past actions and votes) against taking resolute action abroad, even going so far as to dismiss democracy in Iraq as an unimportant goal, that it is clear he would not follow the main thrust of Bush policy: attacking our enemies before they attack us, holding terrorist havens and sponsors as accountable as the terrorists, preventing unstable states from obtaining nuclear weapons. From the standpoint of someone not impelled by domestic US politics, the election of John Kerry will look like a repudiation of these policies.
My personal guess is that a Kerry foreign policy will look like a Clinton foreign policy; my fear is that it will look like a Carter foreign policy. I suppose for the terrorists, you'd have to say "hope" instead of "fear" in that last clause.
Point 3: President Bush's policies are fine, but his execution is terrible.
[Kerry]'s not against the war on terror, or even the war in Iraq, so much as Bush's method of conducting these wars. Bush has validated Kerry's hesitation and concern.
If you don't dispute the policy, then you must provide a vehicle for obtaining it. As George Will said, "Who wills an end must will a means to that end." If you desire an outcome (the removal of Saddam) you must provide a vehicle. Kerry voted for the war and argued against it. He criticized the execution before it began. He makes unrealistic claims - totally at odds with the statements of the French, German and Russian governments - about what he can obtain via diplomacy. What is the vehicle? How else do we obtain the end of removing Saddam without the means of war?
And frankly I'm not even sure if Kerry is for or against prosecuting the war as a war. He's said before that it should be an intelligence and law enforcement operation. It's pretty clear to me that he would not be willing to use force to take on Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia - if he wouldn't use force against Saddam without UN acquiescence, why would he use it against less immediately threatening countries with far less of a record of UN censure behind them? Perhaps Kerry would be willing to make war once there was another September 11 - perhaps this time with nuclear weapons supplied by Iran or N. Korea - but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
While I agree that the Bush administration has been less than perfect in its understanding of some of the dynamics that we need to use to win, I'm not convinced Kerry would do better. If this is a propaganda war (as differentiated from any other war how, exactly?), and if Bush has been less zealous about prosecuting the war of ideas than one would like, how does one find that Kerry would do better? His refusal to support the Varela Project certainly is not encouraging. Nor are his past actions, statements and votes.
I believe that Kerry would be unable to articulate an ideology of American greatness or even the superiority of representative government and rule of law, because I believe that he does not believe in the superiority of representative government and the rule of law. Certainly, his past actions, statements and votes have not indicated any such view on his part.
Point 4: A new administration is more likely to be able to win the goodwill of Iraqis.
I've not seen much evidence that this administration does not have the goodwill of Iraqis. I've seen interviews with high-ranking Ba'athist officers, former(?) Mukhabarat and Fedayeen officers and a few people who have lost their high status in society, in which those people expressed their anger, disappointment and hatred of George Bush and America and the Jews and democracy and individual liberty and such. I've seen the opposite from the Iraqi people themselves; that just doesn't get on the evening "news".
As far as a new approach goes, it has been very clear for some time that the approach is to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqi government, then stay to provide that government with teeth to beat down the jihadis and ensure that the transition to democratic rule takes hold. This would be followed by a political disengagement, probably like with Germany and Japan, where the new government asked us to station forces there. What new approach would you suggest?
Point 5: The Bush administration is too close to Saudi Arabia; a Kerry administration would be tougher on the Saudis.
And a Kerry administration would have a much less cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia. Various Democratic policy makers already see the war on terror much more in terms of our problematic relations with allies like the Saudis and Pakistan, which are indeed likely to be trouble spots in the years to come.
And besides, what would Kerry do? He's not willing to go to war against Saudi Arabia. He's not willing to compel them to carry out law enforcement on our behalf. He's not willing to shut down their oil industry, and thus their ability to fund Wahabbi Islam missionary activities. He's not willing to ban Saudi "charities" or keep Saudi citizens out of the country. What would he do?
Point 6: A Kerry administration would have as much credibility in fighting the Terror Wars as the Bush administration.
No, it wouldn't. Kerry is willing to kowtow to France and the UN for crumbs of approval, unwilling to aggressively wage war, unwilling to defend American interests abroad except in very narrow circumstances and unwilling to confront our enemies or truculent neutrals like Germany and Russia. This is hardly invisible abroad. Certainly the French, the Germans, Hizb'allah, Iran, North Korea and others have made statements that they would prefer Kerry for just that reason.
And while perceptions of American weakness (Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia, refusal to put in ground troops in Kosovo, vaccilation on Bosnia, refusal to retaliate meaningfully against attacks on the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, the African embassies, the USS Cole) last and are taken as lessons, perceptions of American strength (Gulf War, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, OIF) are seen as momentary fits of a failing giant, lashing out in desperation. I don't believe that's what we're doing, but our enemy does believe that, and says so regularly.
The only way for Kerry to gain that credibility is to aggressively defend American security and interests, and he has shown repeatedly that he is unwilling to do so.
Point 7: "Soft power" is now more important than "hard power" in the remainder of the terror wars.
When polls are taken about whether people are satisfied or unsatisfied with the Bush administration's direction in the Terror Wars in general or Iraq in particular, an interesting point emerges. If the question is just "satisfied/unsatisfied", Bush doesn't come off well. But when the question is whether we should be tougher, less tough, or about the same, the preponderance of opinion is that we should be tougher (it even outpolls "about the same"). How could "soft power" answer that desire?
More importantly, how could "soft power" deter the Iranians from using nuclear weapons against Israel or the US, or giving them to terrorists to use, or even developing them in the first place? How could "soft power" stop the beheadings and mutilation, the rabid pathology of jihadi beliefs that it is their religious duty to kill non-Muslims (and even Muslims who aren't the right kind of Muslim) or large-scale terrorist acts like the African Embassy bombings or 9/11?
Point 8: Kerry would be a more credible war leader domestically than President Bush.
"Is it that only someone who does not come off as a warmonger can rally the whole nation?" Um, no. Just how, pray tell, is Kerry supposed to rally the nation, and to what end? "I want all Americans tonight, to unite with me in averting our eyes to the statements and actions of the peaceful Muslim freedom fighters who butchered 10 civilian hostages in Iraq." Doesn't ring true to me, and I wouldn't put it past Kerry.
Let's face it: Kerry is not seen as credible on the war by hardly anyone outside of the fringe who want to end it outright by surrendering, or the few centrists who are more concerned with beating Bush than winning the war. As James Lileks said the other day, "I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated." By Ms. Cunningham's comparison of Bush to Hitler and his administration to the NAZI party, I'm guessing she falls into that category.
Point 9: President Bush and at least some of his cabinet are simply evil.
I was thinking of this after reading Clarke's book, because I agreed with his portrait of John Ashcroft as a terrible Attorney General - in a symbolic sense, if nothing else. Whatever he is or is not doing under the Patriot Act, he is the wrong type to be in the role, because he has no natural affinity for civil rights. He doesn't seem to have too many internal checks on his behavior. Bush/Hitler is, similarly, not going to be given the benefit of the doubt. (Especially when his team are, you know, stealing pages from the Nazi playbook and interrogating people using dogs.)
If I seem to be harping on the dog thing, it's because that combined with the sexual humiliation is so reminiscent of accounts I have read of Klaus Barbie's interrogation style that I cannot get past it. I realize that both methods were probably designed to touch on specific taboos of Islam, dogs being unclean to Muslims, &c. But still, it's so very very Klaus Barbie.This is the only deeply unserious point that Ms. Cunningham makes, and it is so offensive that I almost didn't respond to her other points at all. If you need help telling the Bush administration apart from the NAZIs, or President Bush from Adolf Hitler, then I don't have enough time to do more than say "Read some bloody history, would you?" I can't really say anything more about this without launching into a tirade. This kind of moral equivalence doesn't show the immorality of the target (President Bush) but of the accuser (Ms. Cunningham).
Point 10: Kerry's claims of waging the Terror Wars only with law enforcement and intelligence will not survive his coming into office.
I also think that Kerry will inevitably become more willing to use force once in office. It's when parties are out of power that they appear in their most dovish light.
Oh, sure, Kerry would respond to a direct attack on US soil. No doubt he would react at least by bombing someone somewhere and making tough statements and looking grave and concerned on TV and in many funereal photo ops. But Kerry has shown no interest in preventing such attacks by preempting them. He would rather defend locally than globally, and that is going to get people killed if he's elected.
Again, if you will an end (preventing attacks on the US), you have to will a means to that end. Hope is not a plan. Grave concern is not a method. How are we to prevent terrorism against us except by killing the terrorists and destroying their havens and sources of supply? Unless Kerry is willing to do that - and he shows every indication that he is not so willing - there is little hope of preventing attacks. And if you have already ruled out doing these things to prevent attacks, how do they help in response to attacks?
In an era where our enemies want to die, want to kill us in large numbers, and are on the path to acquire nuclear weapons, turning away from the problem invites genocide on one side or the other.
Point 11: John Kerry is more realistic and more moderate than President Bush.
A Kerry administration would no doubt be less ideologically driven than the Bush team (given that several of his advisors are moderate Republicans), and so might have a more realistic picture of the challenges in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond.
Moreover, it ignores the problem that it's pretty difficult to get more moderate than George Bush. Bush hasn't taken extreme right-wing positions on any issue I can think of. (John Ashcroft has, and I'm not particularly a fan of him as Attorney General, but Bush himself has not.) There are areas where I'm unhappy with his positions, such as the FMA, but I don't find them extreme.
Of course, it depends upon your point of view, as well. If Dan Rather is a moderate in your world, then George Bush could be considered an extremist. But looking at a 3-d bell-curve of how citizens' view fall, with libertarian/collectivist on one axis, and capitalist/communist on the other, Bush is almost dead-center on libertarian/collectivist (perhaps slightly collectivist overall) and significantly towards capitalist. On the other hand, Kerry is significantly collectivist and somewhat communist (in the economic sense - not the political ideology, but the economic theory).
And as for John Kerry's realism, well, I will just let that one go. I think he's living in a fantasy world where everyone is good and nice, as long as we jingoistic Americans - particularly if we are conservative, white and/or male - are appropriately humble and apologetic.
In the end, what matters most about the quality of a President is his character. Will the President act according to solid principles, or will he waver and weasel and stick his finger in the wind? If we cannot predict what he will do, he may or may not act as we hope. And given Kerry's tendency to be on every side of every issue, I simply cannot trust the man. This November, I will vote as if my life depends on it. And since I cannot trust Kerry to take actions either to safeguard my life or, if necessary, to make meaningful my death, I'll be voting for George Bush. And it will be the first vote for a Republican for President that I will have cast since 1988.
UPDATE: Andrew Olmsted comments.
Posted by Jeff at June 24, 2004 03:39 PM | Link Cosmos