July 30, 2004

"There is no cost-free future for the United States..."

George Miller, my London correspondent until he started his own blog, has posted a couple of essays about John Kerry, one written before Kerry's speech last night and the other written after. Both are very good reads, but it's the latter I've chosen to excerpt for you. Miller writes about America and the war on terror through fairly unique eyes - those of a 40-year-old American who has lived in London since the age of 14, except for one year a few year ago in an Atlanta suburb. He starts with a quote from Kerry's speech...

"I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home."

The sum total of what Kerry knows about "what we have to do in Iraq" amounts to no more than this: Kerry would be nicer to "allies" who try to thwart the democratisation of the Arab world and he would cut costs and get the troops home as soon as possible. Kerry might have more foreign policy ideas up his sleeve, but these were the only words he had to say on Iraq in his entire speech last night.

Kerry was unable to actually articulate what the "job" in Iraq is. He wants to talk about strategy while leaving the objectives nice and fuzzy. It's not difficult to understand why he must do this - look at the rabble he was speaking to. Sure, the honorable Senator Joe Lieberman was in the crowd, but so were the Deaniacs. Kerry can't even make the simple verbal commitment to stay the course in Iraq (no matter what other "allies" choose to do) until there is a viable State in that country.

Notice, I don't insist that Kerry promise "democracy" in Iraq as President Bush does. While it's strange that a liberal democrat like Kerry should find it so difficult to articulate a vision that included the spread of democratic values, I'd be content for him to demonstrate "realism" and simply promise to stay the course in Iraq until there was an administration at least as viable as Saddam's, if hopefully a little less brutal.

You might argue that Kerry does believe all this, he jut didn't say so last night. Yet Kerry did find time to say "we are a nation at war." He's happy enough to use the wartime context to explain his exceptional experience in these matters. But if we are at war, then one would expect a man who would be President to explain how he would wage war. After all, whatever decisions a "President Kerry" makes, there will be some cost to pay, and probably in blood. There is no cost-free future for the United States, and there never has been.

A candidate that tells you how he would be unlike the current President, but only offers examples relating to "nuance" and "style," is a candidate that doesn't actually have any clear objectives for the next four years. This lack of direction is just about tolerable in peacetime. If you think this is peacetime, vote Kerry. If you know the country is at war, I suspect you'll stick with the guy who is fighting it.