![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post
This morning, I find myself largely in agreement with Fareed Zakaria's Op-Ed in today's Washington Post, Why Kerry Is Right About Iraq.
Neither Kerry nor President Bush are particularly honest about their views on Iraq. If we knew then that Iraq had no WMDs, there would have been no case that could have been made to get the American public or world community to go into Iraq. Kerry knows it, and won't say it. Bush knows it too, but won't admit that his administration deliberately overlooked any evidence to that effect because they wanted to have the war anyway - even though they couldn't otherwise make a case for it.
The administration position these days seems to be that doing something about Iraq means doing what Bush did. So for Kerry to agree with Bush at the time, but then disagree with the progress and conduct of the war now, means it must be a 'flip-flop'. That's a pretty gross oversimplification, and I think it should be obvious. At this point, I think Kerry's argument - considering his positions - ought to be to make the clear case as to how Bush went wrong, even though Kerry did agree with the overall idea of confronting Saddam.
Following the UN Process. Giving the weapons inspectors time. Invading in larger force. Putting more emphasis on postwar planning. Involving a greater contingent of the international community, even if it included making some trade-offs, in order to gain broader legitimacy. And so on... THere have been other stability/peacekeeping operations that have gone well since the end of the cold war, at least when well planned and executed.
And this is why Iraq, and the Bush administration's handling of it, has been such a mess. This is the type of failure the Kerry administration wouldn't make, and recognizing it as a problem, is a situation the Kerry administration would be able to rectify. (While the Bush administration still struggles to recognize that there's something wrong.) This is an (the) argument that John Kerry ought to be making if he wants to convince large numbers of the population that he's better suited to lead than W is.
I'm just waitng for him to go make that argument as strongly as the Administration (and the Right) makes it's case.
Neither Kerry nor President Bush are particularly honest about their views on Iraq. If we knew then that Iraq had no WMDs, there would have been no case that could have been made to get the American public or world community to go into Iraq. Kerry knows it, and won't say it. Bush knows it too, but won't admit that his administration deliberately overlooked any evidence to that effect because they wanted to have the war anyway - even though they couldn't otherwise make a case for it.
The more intelligent question is (given what we knew at the time): Was toppling Hussein's regime a worthwhile objective? Bush's answer is yes; Howard Dean's is no. Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed. For this "nuance" Kerry has been attacked from both the right and the left. But it happens to be the most defensible position on the subject.
(snip)
Given these realities, the United States had a choice. It could drop all sanctions and the containment of Iraq and welcome Hussein back into the world community. Or it had to hold him to account. Considering what we knew about Hussein's past (his repeated attacks on his neighbors, the gassing of the Kurds, the search for nuclear weapons) and considering what we thought we knew at the time (that his search for major weapons was active), conciliation looked like wishful thinking. It still does. Once out of his box, Hussein would almost certainly have jump-started his programs and ambitions.
The administration position these days seems to be that doing something about Iraq means doing what Bush did. So for Kerry to agree with Bush at the time, but then disagree with the progress and conduct of the war now, means it must be a 'flip-flop'. That's a pretty gross oversimplification, and I think it should be obvious. At this point, I think Kerry's argument - considering his positions - ought to be to make the clear case as to how Bush went wrong, even though Kerry did agree with the overall idea of confronting Saddam.
Following the UN Process. Giving the weapons inspectors time. Invading in larger force. Putting more emphasis on postwar planning. Involving a greater contingent of the international community, even if it included making some trade-offs, in order to gain broader legitimacy. And so on... THere have been other stability/peacekeeping operations that have gone well since the end of the cold war, at least when well planned and executed.
"Strategy is execution," Louis Gerstner, former chief executive of IBM, American Express and RJR Nabisco, has often remarked. In fact, it's widely understood in the business world that having a good objective means nothing if you implement it badly. "Unless you translate big thoughts into concrete steps for action, they're pointless," writes Larry Bossidy, former chief executive of Honeywell.
Bossidy has written a book titled "Execution," which is worth reading in this context. Almost every requirement he lays out was ignored by the Bush administration in its occupation of Iraq. One important example: "You cannot have an execution culture without robust dialogue -- one that brings reality to the surface through openness, candor and informality," Bossidy writes. "Robust dialogue starts when people go in with open minds. You cannot set realistic goals until you've debated the assumptions behind them."
Say this in the business world and it is considered wisdom. But say it as a politician and it is derided as "nuance" or "sophistication."
And this is why Iraq, and the Bush administration's handling of it, has been such a mess. This is the type of failure the Kerry administration wouldn't make, and recognizing it as a problem, is a situation the Kerry administration would be able to rectify. (While the Bush administration still struggles to recognize that there's something wrong.) This is an (the) argument that John Kerry ought to be making if he wants to convince large numbers of the population that he's better suited to lead than W is.
I'm just waitng for him to go make that argument as strongly as the Administration (and the Right) makes it's case.
no subject
Unfortunately, I don't think he will because so many of the core Democrats ae viscerally pacifist (or at least anti Americans going into combat).
no subject
In a significant way, it's a failure of leadership on Kerry's part. If he hasn't stood up to the party on an issue such as this...
no subject
When people talk about Kerry as JK, esp. on LJ, it unnerves me, because when I see JK, I expect it to be followed by Rowling. Of course, Kerry is my wife's name, so discussing him has had unintended consequences.
no subject
I can understand that. But, in my case, that was frequently shorthand for him in the office. I've been calling him JK since 1997.