[Peace-discuss] Even a flawed Kerry beats the alternative

[ppatton at uiuc.edu]

Even if Kerry has serious flaws, removing Bush from office 
should be a top priority of the peace movement.

Even a Flawed Kerry Beats the Alternative
by Jay Bookman
 

On Oct. 11, 2002, U.S. Sen. John Kerry voted in favor of a 
resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war against 
Iraq. That decision has haunted Kerry ever since, as it 
should. With that vote, a man who learned firsthand about the 
tragedy of fighting an ill-conceived war with no clear-cut 
goals agreed to commit another generation to another such war.

Today, Kerry claims that the only reason he voted to 
authorize war was to strengthen the president's hand in 
negotiating with Iraq. As Kerry points out, Bush was publicly 
insisting back then that he had made no decision to go to 
war, and in fact would do everything possible to avoid it.

But if Kerry truly did take Bush at his word, as he now 
claims, then this campaign is for naught because he is too 
big a fool to serve as president.

Even at the time, it was absolutely clear that Bush was dead 
set on ousting Saddam Hussein by force. All of Bush's public 
talk about negotiations and working with the United Nations 
was so much window-dressing, a transparent and in the end 
unsuccessful effort to woo international support for a war he 
was already intent on fighting. Kerry had to know that.

That says something about the Democratic candidate, and it's 
not flattering. In fact, while an enormous amount of ink and 
air time has been wasted rehashing what Bush and Kerry did 
during the Vietnam War, the ongoing war in Iraq provides 
voters a far more accurate guide to their individual 
capabilities and weaknesses, and what they may do in the 
future.

We can never know exactly what thought process led to Kerry's 
vote on the Iraq war, but it is possible to indulge in 
informed conjecture. First, Kerry has said that he saw Saddam 
as a regional threat that eventually would have to be 
confronted. Second, he could not conceive that the Bush 
administration would bungle the operation as badly as it has.

And third, by the time the Senate vote took place, the Bush 
administration had whipped the American people into a major 
panic attack about Iraqi nukes and unmanned aerial vehicles, 
and Kerry wasn't about to buck that tide. He understood all 
too well that if the coming invasion proved even moderately 
successful, an anti-war vote would be a political liability.

That is not a profile in political courage. It suggests a man 
with a realistic outlook on the world, but also a man guided 
by calculation even on a vote of moral consequence. If the 
conservative assault on Kerry as a waffler has been 
effective, it's in part because it contains a degree of truth.

However, if Kerry is guilty of acquiescing to the worst 
American foreign-policy decision in the nation's history, his 
opponent is responsible for actually making that tragic 
decision. In an admittedly difficult first term, Bush has 
proved to be a man of limited insight and experience, 
shortcomings that make him easily manipulated by those around 
him. Tragically for this country and the world, that includes 
Vice President Dick Cheney and others who believe that in the 
U.S. military, they have a tool by which to transform the 
world as they see fit.

It's important to listen to what the Bush administration is 
really promising in this campaign, because on this point they 
are being relatively honest. They not only claim that our 
invasion of Iraq has been a success, they also celebrate it 
as a model for similar operations in the future. Conversely, 
their critique of Kerry as insufficiently aggressive is based 
on the very real fact that he now sees Iraq not as a model to 
be repeated, but as a disaster to be avoided.

That leaves voters with a clear choice: Those who believe 
that invading Iraq has harmed rather than enhanced our 
nation's security should cast a vote for Kerry, who now 
shares that sentiment. Those who see Iraq as a model for 
future operations should vote to re-elect the president. 
However, they should also understand that with so much of our 
manpower committed to Iraq for years to come, the U.S. 
military will be able to take on new commitments only if it 
is significantly expanded. And that probably means a draft.

After all, if transforming the world through our military is 
truly our goal, it can't be done on the cheap.

Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor.

© 2004 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

###
__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Paul Patton
Research Scientist
Beckman Institute  Rm 3027  405 N. Mathews St.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Urbana, Illinois 61801
work phone: (217)-265-0795   fax: (217)-244-5180
home phone: (217)-344-5812
homepage: http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ppatton/www/index.html

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is the
source of all true art and science."
-Albert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________