Iraq speech? Oh, yeah, Kerry gave another Iraq speech...
So yesterday at New York University, John Kerry delivered another speech on Iraq.
{drumming fingers}
Didn't I cover all the really matters about it yesterday? What's the point at this point of getting into the details of this latest flip-flop - or, rather, flip-flops, none of which by this time is even original? Jed Babbin and James S. Robbins did yeoman work hacking it apart this morning.
Just looking at the verbosity of yesterday's posts, I'm going to have to shorten my scrolling threshold in order to keep this thing shorter than my inseam.
But, what the heck, you talked me into it. And besides, as nutty as the Kerry campaign's premise is for this latest "all Iraq, all the time" strategy sounds (i.e. it's only now that voters are starting to pay attention, so Lurch's avalanche of zig-zags on the topic up to now don't matter), even a stopped clock is right twice a day - though, when you think about it, only at the poles, depending upon the season. And sure enough, Kerry spent today speaking on domestic issues in Florida, I believe.
At any rate, the first three-quarters of his speech was pure rehashed Deaniacal boilerplate. Only part that matters, to the extent any of it does, is his latest "four-point plan," and I don't think there's all that much to be said that that hasn't been said before, either.
1) The President should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and of Iraqis [sic] neighbors this week in New York where many leaders will attend the UN General Assembly and he should insist that they make good on the UN resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific but critical roles in training Iraqi security personnel and in securing Iraqi borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.
Why convene a summit that won't accomplish anything? How much time has the Bush Administration spent trying to beg, cajole, and lure the UN to fulfill its ostensible purpose vis-a-vie Iraq? Bush addressed the General Assembly again today, and said many of the same things that he did two years ago. If it hasn't taken by now, chances are it never will.
The UNSCR to which Kerry referred (passed last summer) doesn't promise anything of substance. And, again, Bush "insisted that they make good" on the "severe consequences" promised in SCR 1441 if Saddam didn't comply with the final round of weapons inspections, and where did that get us?
"Potential troop contributors" - meaning France, Russia, and Germany - have already said they won't be contributing any troops. Which is a profound relief, given the recent as well as distant history of those three powers. Besides, after considerable "insistence," NATO is helping us train Iraqi security and military forces. The problem is that Syria and Iran are pouring irregular forces (i.e. terrorist "insurgents") into Iraq faster than the locals can handle them. That's a significant reason why we must keep substantial forces there. That, and the more or less inevitable need to affect regime-change in Damascus and Tehran.
Why "other countries" - meaning France, Russia, and Germany - should be handed the keys to Iraq's oil industry when (1) they were Saddam's biggest backers, including during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and (2) haven't lifted a finger to help us since, and some sixty other "other countries" should be elbowed aside in the process - much like his claim that we have no allies in Iraq coupled with his condescending insults of the three dozen or so allies that make up the Coalition of the Willing (which includes roughly half of NATO) - really is a question Senator Kerry needs to answer.
2) The President should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside of Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double the classroom training time, require the follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries, and he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers and start behaving like we really are at war.
This one overlaps considerable with point #1. It's also contradictory; Kerry claims that we "urgently" need to expand security training, implying that we can't handle it ourselves, yet wants to wait until "our allies" (meaning France, Germany, and Russia) come in and take it all off our hands - which they've already said they're not going to do. So if "our allies" won't go along with his plan, I guess Iraqi security forces will never get trained. Other than the 209,000 that have been already. Maybe they'll forget everything they were taught, or go join the "insurgents," or something.
By "phony, inflated numbers," I assume he's referring to the 172,000 Iraqi cops and soldiers of the aformentioned 209,000 that he refuses to recognize. Kind of like the Coalition of the Willing that he insists is "coerced and bribed" and doesn't count.
"Start behaving like we're really at war" stumps me, unless Kerry thinks that such behavior has to reflect a mindset of impenetrable defeatism.
3) The President must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people, all of which, may I say, should have been in the plan and immediately launched with such a ferocity that there was no doubt about America's commitment or capacity in the very first moments afterwards.
The President has already done this - largely through, yes, companies like Halliburton, which already subcontract to 310 Iraqi firms, employing over 76,000 people. And Iraqis themselves tell pollsters that they're a lot more optimistic about their country's present and future than the dire portrait the Boston Balker is trying to paint.
Curious, his use of the term "ferocity" in such a context. I mean, I know that Paul Bremer wasn't a particularly effective rebuilder during his tenure as viceroy, but Kerry makes it sound like a biological experiment hybridizing Rambo and Bob Vila. How does one pour concrete or pound nails or install electrical wiring or repair pipelines "ferociously"? And who, besides Democrats like John Kerry, doubted America's commitment or capacity? Hell, this speech raises huge doubts about America's commitment (should Kerry win) all by itself.
4) The President must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee that the promised election can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people, and an assembly that could write a constitution and yields a viable power-sharing agreement.
Bush is already doing this. The Iraqis are already doing this, with our assistance. Kerry wants to set them up by cutting and running while promising that "our allies" (meaning France, Russia, and Germany, the benefactors of the dictator that enslaved them) will take over for us. Then real "chaos" would descend, and Iraq would either become an Iranian vassal or be annexed by Tehran outright.
Kerry's conclusion?
"[W]e could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer, and realistically aim to bring all of our forces home within four years."
Regardless of whether his "plan" goes according to plan.
This is the Vietnam mentality, gentles. Not victory, but withdrawal. Not defeating our enemies to ensure the safety of our homeland, but "bringing our troops home" and placing our faith once more in "diplomacy" and "multilateralism" and summitry and "allies" that see us as a rival to be pinned down and all the other instruments of feckless pacifism that got us into this war in the first place.
Richard Nixon once said that no man could screw up the country beyond repair in only four years. But Jimmy Carter came damned close. And John Kerry would be even money to pull it off.
Bottom line is, if he wins, all American lives are essentially forfeited.
A stark choice, indeed.
Didn't I cover all the really matters about it yesterday? What's the point at this point of getting into the details of this latest flip-flop - or, rather, flip-flops, none of which by this time is even original? Jed Babbin and James S. Robbins did yeoman work hacking it apart this morning.
Just looking at the verbosity of yesterday's posts, I'm going to have to shorten my scrolling threshold in order to keep this thing shorter than my inseam.
But, what the heck, you talked me into it. And besides, as nutty as the Kerry campaign's premise is for this latest "all Iraq, all the time" strategy sounds (i.e. it's only now that voters are starting to pay attention, so Lurch's avalanche of zig-zags on the topic up to now don't matter), even a stopped clock is right twice a day - though, when you think about it, only at the poles, depending upon the season. And sure enough, Kerry spent today speaking on domestic issues in Florida, I believe.
At any rate, the first three-quarters of his speech was pure rehashed Deaniacal boilerplate. Only part that matters, to the extent any of it does, is his latest "four-point plan," and I don't think there's all that much to be said that that hasn't been said before, either.
1) The President should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and of Iraqis [sic] neighbors this week in New York where many leaders will attend the UN General Assembly and he should insist that they make good on the UN resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific but critical roles in training Iraqi security personnel and in securing Iraqi borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.
Why convene a summit that won't accomplish anything? How much time has the Bush Administration spent trying to beg, cajole, and lure the UN to fulfill its ostensible purpose vis-a-vie Iraq? Bush addressed the General Assembly again today, and said many of the same things that he did two years ago. If it hasn't taken by now, chances are it never will.
The UNSCR to which Kerry referred (passed last summer) doesn't promise anything of substance. And, again, Bush "insisted that they make good" on the "severe consequences" promised in SCR 1441 if Saddam didn't comply with the final round of weapons inspections, and where did that get us?
"Potential troop contributors" - meaning France, Russia, and Germany - have already said they won't be contributing any troops. Which is a profound relief, given the recent as well as distant history of those three powers. Besides, after considerable "insistence," NATO is helping us train Iraqi security and military forces. The problem is that Syria and Iran are pouring irregular forces (i.e. terrorist "insurgents") into Iraq faster than the locals can handle them. That's a significant reason why we must keep substantial forces there. That, and the more or less inevitable need to affect regime-change in Damascus and Tehran.
Why "other countries" - meaning France, Russia, and Germany - should be handed the keys to Iraq's oil industry when (1) they were Saddam's biggest backers, including during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and (2) haven't lifted a finger to help us since, and some sixty other "other countries" should be elbowed aside in the process - much like his claim that we have no allies in Iraq coupled with his condescending insults of the three dozen or so allies that make up the Coalition of the Willing (which includes roughly half of NATO) - really is a question Senator Kerry needs to answer.
2) The President should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside of Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double the classroom training time, require the follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries, and he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers and start behaving like we really are at war.
This one overlaps considerable with point #1. It's also contradictory; Kerry claims that we "urgently" need to expand security training, implying that we can't handle it ourselves, yet wants to wait until "our allies" (meaning France, Germany, and Russia) come in and take it all off our hands - which they've already said they're not going to do. So if "our allies" won't go along with his plan, I guess Iraqi security forces will never get trained. Other than the 209,000 that have been already. Maybe they'll forget everything they were taught, or go join the "insurgents," or something.
By "phony, inflated numbers," I assume he's referring to the 172,000 Iraqi cops and soldiers of the aformentioned 209,000 that he refuses to recognize. Kind of like the Coalition of the Willing that he insists is "coerced and bribed" and doesn't count.
"Start behaving like we're really at war" stumps me, unless Kerry thinks that such behavior has to reflect a mindset of impenetrable defeatism.
3) The President must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people, all of which, may I say, should have been in the plan and immediately launched with such a ferocity that there was no doubt about America's commitment or capacity in the very first moments afterwards.
The President has already done this - largely through, yes, companies like Halliburton, which already subcontract to 310 Iraqi firms, employing over 76,000 people. And Iraqis themselves tell pollsters that they're a lot more optimistic about their country's present and future than the dire portrait the Boston Balker is trying to paint.
Curious, his use of the term "ferocity" in such a context. I mean, I know that Paul Bremer wasn't a particularly effective rebuilder during his tenure as viceroy, but Kerry makes it sound like a biological experiment hybridizing Rambo and Bob Vila. How does one pour concrete or pound nails or install electrical wiring or repair pipelines "ferociously"? And who, besides Democrats like John Kerry, doubted America's commitment or capacity? Hell, this speech raises huge doubts about America's commitment (should Kerry win) all by itself.
4) The President must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee that the promised election can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people, and an assembly that could write a constitution and yields a viable power-sharing agreement.
Bush is already doing this. The Iraqis are already doing this, with our assistance. Kerry wants to set them up by cutting and running while promising that "our allies" (meaning France, Russia, and Germany, the benefactors of the dictator that enslaved them) will take over for us. Then real "chaos" would descend, and Iraq would either become an Iranian vassal or be annexed by Tehran outright.
Kerry's conclusion?
"[W]e could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer, and realistically aim to bring all of our forces home within four years."
Regardless of whether his "plan" goes according to plan.
This is the Vietnam mentality, gentles. Not victory, but withdrawal. Not defeating our enemies to ensure the safety of our homeland, but "bringing our troops home" and placing our faith once more in "diplomacy" and "multilateralism" and summitry and "allies" that see us as a rival to be pinned down and all the other instruments of feckless pacifism that got us into this war in the first place.
Richard Nixon once said that no man could screw up the country beyond repair in only four years. But Jimmy Carter came damned close. And John Kerry would be even money to pull it off.
Bottom line is, if he wins, all American lives are essentially forfeited.
A stark choice, indeed.
posted by JASmius at 5:21 PM
<<< Home