Postscript on Kerry's BooBoo and the War Issue

OK...Kerry made four mistakes:

1) Wrong joke. "You get stuck in Iraq." Bush may be to blame, etc., etc., but we're ALL stuck in Iraq.

2) Wrong Audience. Had he made this statement in a one-on-one interview or even to the VFW, it MAY have been understood...but not surrounded by school kids. He mixed messages.

3) Wrong Type of Humor. Sarcasm seldom goes over in political speeches...unless very, very heavy handed. If the joke was about Bush, he should have mentioned Bush by name.

4) Wrong Timing...really, really lousy. Democrats are focused on winning elections on Tuesday, not lamenting the 2004 loss or rehashing the issues. John, you lost...we know why and don't need your explanation...get over it!

If Kerry wants to stand a chance in the 2008 Presidential Sweepstakes, my advice would be to fire most of his staff and obtain replacements from somewhere in all of those red fly-over states.

MEANWHILE...why isn't someone noting that while Iraq seems to be entering a crucial phase and that while the Iraqi "government" is standing up...to disagree with U.S. military commanders on the ground...the Commander-in-Chief is out raising political funds and campaigning. The three issues Democrats should be pounding on are:

1) Right or wrong, we are where we are and it is time to "redefine" exactly what "victory" means, because there may be a big, big difference between what a democratic Iraq wants and the objectives of U.S. policy. The Republican argument is filled with holes and increasingly obvious contradictions. For one, a democratic Iraq now probably means a barely secular state, under Shite majority control. Given that on-the-ground reality it in all likelihood also means an Iraq allied with Iran, not a "bulkwark" of defense against terrorism or a hospitable location for a new Mid-East, pro-American "base." IOW, the goals of a democratic Iraq and an ally in the War on Terror may be contradictory.

2) Right or wrong, we invaded Iraq (wrong, in my personal opinion) and ousted Saddam Hussein and destroyed (or tried to) his base - an infrastructure based around the Sunni miniority. It is really no longer our position to even set goals for "victory." Victory is for the Iraq government to define. As long as we keep trying to define "victory" from Washington, D.C. we only dig our hole deeper and confirm the worst suspicions of most of the Muslim world. The "timetable" should not be based on U.S. troop withdrawals, but at what point do we stop trying to "direct" the Iraqi government and start asking them, "what do you need from us?"

3) The combination of trying to "streamline" our military forces for the 21st century and take on the responsibility for Iraq at the same time has proven to be a disaster. When the best military minds suggested we would need 300,000+ boots on the ground to BOTH secure our rear echelons, as we advanced on Baghdad, and to ensure post-war stability and didn't get those numbers, people in the military should have resigned. For that matter, Rumsfeld should have resigned. Resources must always match commitments. Embarking on some global mission to democratize the world, without adequate forces and resources is insanity and a disservice to the men and women we put in harm's way. Bush needs to either "put up" or "shut up." Our current level of "commitment," (a barely marginal force that only just manages to sustain the status quo), despite all of the Republican rheotric about staying the course, actually reflects the growing dissatisfaction of the American people with the War. He has put politics above the protection of American forces in the field, the latter of which may only be secured through reinforcement or disengagement.

If the President REALLY want's HIS "victory," let him go back to Congress, ask for a formal declaration of war on terror, and explain to the American people that his strategy for victory probably means 500,000 troops in the Middle East as an "occupying force" for the next 50 years. Then, let the American voters decide whether or not they want to support the overall policy.

In sum, the President is rapidly arriving at a point wherein he must either radically re-define his Mid-East foreign policy goals or go to the American people and ask for the necessary resources to achieve those goals and protect the people we now have in the field. If he continues to try and run this thing on a shoe string and fails to demand accountability for critical errors in the field (e.g. the failure to record serial numbers of weapons supplied to the Iraqis, the failure to provide adequate armor, the failure to provide adequate forces, etc.), the American people will hold him accountable. It's time for him to stop acting like a politican and to start acting like a true Commander in Chief.