Every time Kerry or other Democrats criticize the failures of Bush’s policies in Iraq, the knee-jerk GOP response is, “What would you do differently?” (That is, the response after our patriotism is attacked and we’re told criticisms aid and abet the enemy…)
I can appreciate that Kerry, as the Dems’ presidential nominee, needs to articulate his foreign policy vision and explain what our Iraqi policy would look like under his leadership. But it’s not Kerry’s fault we’re in a jam; it’s Bush’s. As Noam Scheiber recently noted, Kerry’s plan would have been to “not get us into this mess in the first place.”
In fact, I’ve often wondered if the Republicans keep asking what Kerry would do differently in Iraq because they’ve run out of ideas of their own and they’re hoping to steal Kerry’s agenda and implement it as their own.
In any case, Kerry has an excellent op-ed in the Washington Post today explaining a far different strategy than the one Bush is pursuing. It’s definitely worth reading. It’s not a hyper-detailed foreign policy critique, but it’s awfully good for 800 words.
To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did.
Kerry frequently talks on the stump about bringing other countries, under the auspices of the United Nations, into Iraq to help internationalize the efforts and lessen the burden on our troops, but his op-ed expanded on this point to get at the heart of the matter.
In recent weeks the administration — in effect acknowledging the failure of its own efforts — has turned to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept. It is vital that Brahimi accomplish this mission, but the odds are long, because tensions have been allowed to build and distrust among the various Iraqi groups runs deep. The United States can bolster Brahimi’s limited leverage by saying in advance that we will support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders. Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq’s transition to a new constitution and government. We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.
We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers. The events of the past week will make foreign governments extremely reluctant to put their citizens at risk. That is why international acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition. The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.
And as long as I’m on the subject, if you haven’t already seen it, I’d like to enthusiastically recommend Kerry’s speech on fighting a “comprehensive war on terrorism” from February. It’s a must-read, even if it’s a couple of months old.