Site Presented By
Saturday, Jul 11, 2009
Thoughts on President Bush's foreign policy debacle -- and what the Democratic presidential nominee should say and do about it -- from John Judis, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Michael Lind and more.
Jul 23, 2004 | John B. Judis, senior editor of the New Republic; visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
I deal here only with what Kerry should say in the election, not with what he should do as president, which is a very different subject. In the campaign, he must deal above all with the threat of al-Qaida and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. First, he has to counter the impression -- particularly among white, working-class voters -- that Republicans are tougher and better prepared to protect America from foreign attack. He needs to tout his war record, criticize the Bush administration's failure to make Americans more secure, and promise to get the terrorists that have eluded Bush. He's been pretty good on doing this.
Secondly, he has to convince voters that he will deal with them straightforwardly and honestly on foreign policy -- and conversely that Bush has not. It is very important for the Kerry campaign to remind voters that Bush exaggerated or lied about the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ties with al-Qaida. The campaign, if not Kerry himself, has to shake voters' trust in the president as a leader. So far Kerry and his campaign have not been very good at this for reasons I don't entirely understand.
Thirdly, Kerry has to convince voters that while he won't "turn tail" or "cut and run" in Iraq, he will extricate the U.S. from its position as the principal occupying force (along with the docile Brits) in Iraq. He has to convince voters that he is in better position than Bush is to bring in other countries and to get Americans out. (And Kerry is.) This is very important to winning over swing-state voters who fear, above all, a protracted Vietnam-like war. He should be studying Nixon's 1968 campaign. Thus far, Kerry has been awful on this point. In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, he even suggested that American troops could remain in Iraq through his first term. Kerry's failure on this point could cost him the election.
Fourth, Kerry has to emphasize that he will not commit American troops to a "war of choice." The U.S. may contribute to peacekeeping forces or engage with NATO in the Balkans, but under a Kerry administration, we will not launch a full-scale invasion of a country, putting Americans at risk and committing its available resources, unless it is absolutely necessary for our security. He must make it clear that the Bush administration launched a war of choice, not one of necessity, in Iraq.
Kerry has been at best mediocre at making this case. Except in touting his Vietnam experience, Kerry has been either overly vague or overly defensive in laying out his foreign policy. He can't continue to do so, and hope to win in November.
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., historian and Pulitzer-prize winning author:
John Kerry should say he voted for war because he believed in George W. Bush's account of the threat. And since that account of threat turned out to be false, he should say that he did not and could not take President Bush seriously any more. President Bush got us into this mess and we can't withdraw precipitously, but we need to internationalize the occupation and get the U.N. involved -- which Bush is opposed to -- and the sooner the better.
I think the real blow has been the torture revelations. It will take a long time to obliterate the memory of Abu Ghraib, and I think the quickest way to do it is to have regime change in Washington.
Ted Widmer, director of the C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience; former director of speechwriting for President Clinton's National Security Council:
There is some confusion over Sen. Kerry's two votes on Iraq, fanned by a Republican attack machine that will stop at nothing to portray Kerry as a waffler. But there's also an explanation for those willing to get into the weeds. Kerry's first vote, to support a future war effort in October 2002, was less gung-ho than it appeared -- it was predicated on the president's promise to pursue inspections and assemble a coalition -- promises that were never fulfilled. The second vote, against an $87 billion war package in October 2003, was not a knee-jerk antiwar statement. Kerry voted against the money because the bill had serious loopholes, including no-bid contracts for Bush cronies, and Kerry wanted more money to come from cutting tax breaks for the rich. That's not exactly wearing a peace sign and a dashiki.
Will most Americans take the time to sort through these details? No. But a simpler explanation makes just as much sense. In October 2002 the war cause, based on what was presumed to be infallible secret evidence, was persuasive to most people who trusted the president. A year later, after multiple deceptions, cost overruns and clear evidence of an insurgency that was out of control, glib answers from the White House were no longer acceptable. No historian would ever suggest that a principled senator like J. William Fulbright was a waffler simply because he voted for the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolutions and then opposed the Vietnam War when it was revealed to be a tissue of lies. In fact, the early deception was precisely what fueled his later opposition. Like Fulbright, Kerry should take pride in his growing skepticism -- basing it not on narrow partisan concerns (Fulbright, after all, was opposing a Democratic president), but on the greater injustice that a president deceived troops, Congress and the American people with claims that were not even close to being true. It is only by resorting to principle -- the most powerful weapon in America's arsenal -- that we can win back the respect of the world.
