Which is better: a foreign policy with a clearly articulated grand strategy but a f#$%ed-up policy process, or a foreign policy with no articulated grand strategy but a superior policy process?

It is said that in hell, there won't be any vision. Just policy, and the law.

So I envision a John Kerry presidency.

Their is zero evidence Kerry will have a superior policy process. Judging by his action as a senator in regards to Nicaragua, Libya, and Gulf War 1, his instincts are absolutely atrocious. This is the rookie running back syndrome, the new untarnished player always has all the aspirations and expectations of resounding brilliance applied to him. Statistically speaking its nonsense, veterans are far more reliable. In this case the only people making that argument are utterly and intentionally avoiding the last 20 years of Kerry's career like the plague. See no evil, hear no evil.

word.

now I'm just crossing my fingers that Kerry will say something disparaging about the efficacy of sanctions so we can seal the deal and make use of DD's vast influence.

We are still talking about the lesser of evils. John Kerry has been caught lying about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. This lie reveals a very dangerous character flaw. A normal person does not lie about something like this. President Bush may leave something to be desired---but he’s not John Kerry!

We are still talking about the lesser of evils. George Bush has been caught lying about the estate tax among other things. This lie reveals a very dangerous character flaw. A normal person does not lie about something like this. John Kerry may leave something to be desired---but he’s not George Bush!

The fundamental problem with the argument is that if you study policy long enough then you are forced to act. You can nuance this thing to death until the problem forces action on an unacceptable course. Isn't that what the Bush bashers are saying about 911. He studied the problem to long and missed all the signs?

I applaud the President for taking action. Things in Iraq are going rather well and I don't say that lightly. I spent 5 years in Germany as part of the occupying force during a time of terrorist attacking in Europe (we have spent over 50 years in Germany). Where are the European terrorists today?

In just over a year we have turned sovereign rule of Iraq back to the people and life their is improving rapidly. Read the blogs from the Iraqi's, not the media.

Want proof how long WW2 took, read this link.

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

The problem with the policy wonks is they want to study the problem to death, find every little problem that they can and then cover their ass if things don't go their way.

Policy people serve an important function, but leaders make decisions and fix problems.

In the spirit of praktike, who is on to something with regard to the revwerse applicability of Kerry criticisms... (And with apologies to Mark B, whose opinions I always respect):

There is zero evidence Bush has a policy process. Judging by his action as a president in regards to Venezuala, North Korea, and Gulf War II, his instincts are absolutely atrocious. This is the incumbent running back syndrome, the old experienced player always has all the aspirations and expectations of steady leadership applied to him. Statistically speaking its nonsense, substandard veterans generally play as they have always played. In this case the only people making that argument are utterly and intentionally avoiding the last year of Bush's career like the plague. See no evil, hear no evil.

Anyone who thinks John Kerry and his magic Cambodian hat is going to accomplish anything with the military is smoking crack.

At least you'll get tenure.

Dan,

Do you even care that Kerry will do and say anything to anyone to get elected? Do you even care that his claimed experiences in Vietnam are largely fraudulent? Do you care that he proposes 2 trillion dollars in increased spending? Do you care that he will appoint leftists to the supreme court?

'Thing in Iraq are going rather well and I don't say that lightly. '

This is clearly some definition of going well with which I was previously not acquainted. By no definition can a situation where we have 140 K troops in Iraq, are spending billions of dollars, face daily attacks, suicide bombings, have a great deal of the population angry at us (according to polls) can be called going rather well.

"I spent 5 years in Germany as part of the occupying force during a time of terrorist attacking in Europe "

AFAIK, there were no terrorist attacks on American troops in Germany after the surrender (and a little mopping up). The only terrorists in Germay were the Baader Meinhoff and they came decades later.

"Read the blogs from the Iraqi's, not the media."

Blogs are a useful window into Iraqi society. But the blogs from Iraq are (as one would expect) very mixed. There are blogs that are strongly pro-American, there are blogs that are fanatically anti-American, there are blogs that support the new Iraqi goverment, and oppose terrorists (but have no particular love for Americans as well) and so on. So blogs show a mixed picture as one would expect.

It need hardly be added that blogs cover a certain segment of population (young, highly educated, probably somewhat secular), and neglect others (tribal and rural areas, poor urban youth and others). While useful, blogs are no substitute for the media in covering much of Iraq.

Bush has a clearly articulated grand strategy? He didn't even have a strategy to deal with Iraq. That's just one country. Maybe his supporters like to think that he has one. I know a lot of warblogger types will take every instance of confusion and incompetence as some sort of secret rope-a-dope strategery. Meanwhile back in the real world. . .

Yes Matthew, a liberal position is sure to get you tenure at The University of Chicago!

You make quite a persuasive argument though. If we're in the business of ad hominems, "We may be smoking crack, but our candidate didn't do coke."

Whereas Kerry may have lied about Cambodia (bad), Bush just doesn't talk about the years where he did cocaine, or talk about his military service, or talk about what his tax cuts really did (I mean, tax shifts) or talk about the real problems in Iraq. So much better than lying.

I repeat that strategy, policy-making process (planning how to implement strategy) and execution/implementation are three different things. It is possible for strategies to be devised outside the policy-making process - President Reagan's strategy for destroying the USSR is an example.

Execution of the NSSC in Europe and much of the rest of the world outside the Middle East has been almost non-existent because the foreign policy establishment is so opposed to large parts of it - our career diplomats openly oppose the war on terror. That means it can only be implemented over their dead bodies. I predict a PATCO moment (Professional Air Traffic Controllers) is coming for the Foreign Service.

Much the same is true for the policy-making process, other than war-fighting, in D.C. The State Department in particular is engaged in active sabotage at this level, though there are other offenders. President Bush's failure to exert any discipline means there is no downside, for bureacracies and individuals, in carrying policy disagreements into disobedience.

Matthew is just setting himself up, so...

Do you, as a conservative, care that Bush has increased spending to the levels he has?

Do you care that he stated in the 2000 campaign that he wouldn't be a nation-builder, and has no 'attempted' to build two nations?

Do you care that he originally said that his tax cuts were to give back the surplus and then, midcourse, decided they were to boost employment?

The list could go on, and some of your statements about Kerry are overblown (I don't think we really know who is right in the SVFT stuff, but to say it's largely fraudulent is a little ridiculous).

The Hack Gap continues.

Lol AM, touche.

Has Kerry managed to spin up a position on Korea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, or anywhere else of critical importance yet? Just wondering, seems kinda like somethin he'd want to do, running for president and all. But maybe ill take Dan's course, and just assume he has answers to all of those crises wrapped up in his secret plan, and ill further assume they wont be infantile attempts at appeasement such as he showed in his dealings with the Sandanistas. I think those are very safe bets even if i have no evidence to back them up.

oh, Tom.

In order to be a leader, you have to have followers.

“Whereas Kerry may have lied about Cambodia (bad), Bush just doesn't talk about the years where he did cocaine, or talk about his military service, or talk about what his tax cuts really did (I mean, tax shifts) or talk about the real problems in Iraq. So much better than lying.”

You have absolutely no evidence of George W. Bush ever using cocaine. This is an outrageous slander. As for his military service, he did his duty. Nobody has found legitimate fault. Once again, we are talking about a slander campaign. John Kerry has lied about his own country and fellow soldiers merely to advance his own political fortunes. We are not talking about a minor fib like some man lying about his height being 5”8 when he’s only 5”6. No, Kerry’s lies reveal a dangerous character flaw. We may look the other way, for example, if somebody tells their boss they are sick just to get the day off. But we are appalled if that same person falsely informs everybody that their mother has died. Kerry has comparably lied about the death of his own mother.

We are still talking about the lesser of evils. John Kerry has been caught lying about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. This lie reveals a very dangerous character flaw. A normal person does not lie about something like this. President Bush may leave something to be desired---but he’s not John Kerry!

posted by: David Thomson on 08.18.04 at 11:24 AM

If anyone's smoking crack, I'd put my money on David Thomson.

"Do you even care that Kerry will do and say anything to anyone to get elected? Do you even care that his claimed experiences in Vietnam are largely fraudulent? Do you care that he proposes 2 trillion dollars in increased spending? Do you care that he will appoint leftists to the supreme court?"

You forgot -- famine, locusts, war, Sodom and Gomorrah returned if Kerry is elected.

"and just assume he has answers to all of those crises wrapped up in his secret plan"

Whatever Kerry's secret plans are, they cannot conceivably be worse than the invade first, we'll figure it out later strategy of GWB. A "grand vision" is useless, indeed worse than useless, its highly harmful without execution and GWBs execution has varied between tolerable and pathetic.

To erg,

I was stationed in Germany from the end of 1985 to January 1990. We flew on Pan Am to the USA 3 days before the plane was blown up over Lockerbee. The Berlin disco bombing took place while I was assigned in Germany. The BG (whose last name eludes me)was kidnampped during my tour. I believe you write before you think.

Also, it is a known fact that most if not all the reporters are safely living in the green zone and not out reporting the news. I trust the blogs because the people live in the community. Isn't this a blog also?

First off, I am not a conservative. I'm not happy about Bush's lack of attention to spending constraint, but I think it's abundantly clear that Kerry will be worse (2 trillion in new additional costs in his proposal list).

The most important role of President, particularly in a time of war, is that of commander in chief. John Kerry is utterly unfit for that job as is absolutely clear from his campaign waffling, his senate career of appeasement and weakness wrt. American enemies, his Vietnam anti-war activities, and his Vietnam service (according to the vast majority of his fellow swift-boat vets). Bush on the other hand is a war-time leader who makes mistakes, sometimes large ones, but is willing to fight the enemy (middle-easter islamic terrorism and to drain the swamp (miserable governmance in the middle east). Being a man who makes mistakes in wartime but who has the guts to fight puts Bush in good company with people like Lincoln and Churchill.

“...and some of your statements about Kerry are overblown (I don't think we really know who is right in the SVFT stuff, but to say it's largely fraudulent is a little ridiculous).”

John Kerry’s own campaign has now admitted that he lied about being in Cambodia during Christmas 1968. They are, of course, trying to put their best spin on the situation---but the con game is over. Let’s getting something straight. We are not discussing some poor slob who just got off the plane and hasn’t slept in over 48 hours, and a reporter comes up to him and he blurts out something incorrect. No, John Kerry calmly and deliberately lied to the American people. The Massachusetts senator maliciously slandered his own country and fellow soldiers.

At least you are "getting real" about where your political predilictions are. You dialogue has shown that you were aligned with John Kerry and the Democrats, at least in your view of the issues and people, quite a long time ago.

I certainly don't have a PhD in your field, but that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with your analysis of events.

My reading of things is that the Democrats don't have a clue as to how to "fix things". All they know how to do is to say that they do know (but can't say).

My take on the whole dialogue about Cambodia, Viet Nam, and John Kerry, is that he can tell stories, but you need to fact check them, as the truth content is likely to be small.

If you follow John Kerry's reasoning, then my younger brother, who spent 17 months in Viet Nam as a Marine, is more qualified to be President than John Kerry. I even have as much Viet Nam-era service as Senator Harkin (who had been saying falsely that he was a Viet Nam veteran). I don't think that any of it matters, as far as one's qualifications to do anything.

Regards,

Jim Bender

http://anglo-dutch-wars.blogspot.com/

http://17th-centurynavwargaming.blogspot.com/

http://kentishknock.com/

http://anglodutchwarsblog.com/

http://dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/

Matthew reinterpreted:

Do you even care that Bushy will do and say anything to anyone to get elected, and has done so for the last 3.5 years? Do you even care that his claimed experiences in the ANG are largely fraudulent (where is his DD Form 214)? Do you care that he has put us into debt for over 7.4 trillion dollars (about $25k per citizen)? Do you care that he will appoint more rightists to the supreme court that (like Thomas, as described by Scalia) do not believe in Stare Decisis, and are judicial activists)?

"Whatever Kerry's secret plans are, they cannot conceivably be worse than the invade first, we'll figure it out later strategy of GWB"

You cant conceive of a worse policy? Not much imagination. I can conceive of some pretty nasty scenarios where the US bails on Iraq turning into Lebanon II, Iran gets armed with nukes and becomes the new Taliban, tens of thousands of troops get sent to Afghanistan to search for people who arent there anymore and end up getting their asses kicked by the people who are, NK starts churning out nukes to anyone who cares to buy em, Pakistan is overthrown by the Islamists and Kerry invites them to Camp David to ask them nicely not to nuke Israel or hand AQ a nuke, Libya goes back into business as Syria ugly twin, and our president spends most of his time hammering out the Kyoto II treaty and trying Tommy Franks in the World Court.

Zakaria's points are well made-- the hubris of the Bush admin certainly explains its botching of the postwar-- but it's not at all clear that anyone else would not have made huge mistakes as well. This is especially true as regards supporting and building up the only really effective non-Ba'athist political entities in Iraq, ie Sistani and the other religious leaders. No one, Democrat or Republican, American or European, had anything like good ties with or insight into these leaders' mentality and organizations for the same reason that no one had good intel on Saddam: the Ba'athist regime was a paranoid, Stalinist state.

Knocking over a paranoid, Stalinist regime will inevitably create chaos. Regardless of the State Dept's blueprints for Phase IV, on the ground after April 2003 there were no effective cadres of apolitical bureaucrats, no apolitical chains of command or authority, that we could have invoked to keep the electricity plants safe and running in the face of a complete collapse of institutional authority.

The "won the war but botched the peace" argument is therefore bogus. The inevitable consequence of the war was the collapse of all effective authority in Iraq. We should have the honesty and moral clarity to admit that, if the war was the right thing to do-- and in view of the shredding of the sanctions' effectiveness by oil-for-fraud, it appears it was-- then we have to accept a period of chaos and turmoil and high loss of life as the wages of this war.

Drezner,

You left out one important detail: what is the value of p at the moment?

Never mind ...

Post-communist Russia was chaotic, as were most Soviet Bloc states throughout the 1990s. Can anyone imagine how much more difficult, and bloody, and chaotic those states would have been had the regimes been knocked over by an invading force?

Get real. No planning effort, regardless of how it was executed, could have spared Iraq the bloodshed and chaos it's undergoing now.

This insipid little bit about Kerry 'lying to the American people' about being in Cambodia on Christmas is exactly the kind of trivia that people on the right, in their mentally deficient worldview, base their decisions on.

Kerry was actually in Cambodia in January and February following that Christmas.

Kerry was near Cambodia on the date of the anecdote he related.

This is what people capable of a good faith read would call an honest mistake.

To say otherwise indicates a deep character flaw, that of being a miserable hack.

From Joel W: "Do you care that he stated in the 2000 campaign that he wouldn't be a nation-builder, and has no 'attempted' to build two nations?"

Ah, the 9/11 denial that often goes hand in hand with Kerry supporters. I was finding this post a bit convincing myself until I read that... but it reminded me of why I really wish the dems had nominated Lieberman.

I just can't, in good conscience, vote for someone that wants to pretend like none of this nasty terrorism business ever happened, and thinks that if we just leave the terrorists alone, they will do the same to us. That's the impression I get from Kerry, anyway, despite my efforts to convince myself otherwise.

I consider myself fairly centrist, and I actually have a bit of resentment for the democratic party for nominating a candidate whose entire campaign boils down to "You hate X about Bush? Well, I'll do the opposite of that!" Where can I get an "Anybody but Kerry" bumper sticker?

We are still talking about the lesser of evils. John Kerry has been caught lying about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. This lie reveals a very dangerous character flaw. A normal person does not lie about something like this. President Bush may leave something to be desired---but he’s not John Kerry!

Have you been paying any attention the last 4 years? For that matter did you read the post? Christ, where is my blood pressure medication...

This election is a referendum on Bush's failures as President brought on by following the idiotic ideology of the radical reactionaries that have taken over the Republican party.

When he should have heeded the warnings of President Clinton to focus on terrorism, he chose to resurrect the Star Wars boondoggle.

When he was forced to react to terrorism, he lost focus, failed to finish the job in Afghanistan, and used WMD's as a pretext to follow the PNAC agenda.

Invading Iraq has been a delusional exercise, a children's crusade based on the angel dust buzz of Shock & Awe and Magic Beans of Democracy, with no coherent plan for maintaining peace or reconstruction.

He has failed to meet his promise to the American People to create more jobs by over 7 million, but he's managed to shift more of the tax burden to the middle class and give .5 trillion dollars to the rich.

I tired of waxing poetic. Suffice to say his continued subversion of environmental conservation, education, scientfic research, civil liberties, and health insurance, is more than sufficient reason for his defeat and the repudiation of the rabid reactionary cardre controling the Republcian Party.

In making policy, "doing nothing" is ALWAYS an option. That is essentially the policy route Sen. Kerry has chosen, as of now, in regard to a strategy in dealing with the radical Islamist threat. [As an aside, please note that I am NOT a Muslim-basher--I believe that our enemy in this struggle is not the politically/religiously driven tactic of terrorism, nor is it Islam, rather a very specific group of people who adhere to a very martial interpretation of Islam.]

By choosing, as Matthew Yglesias suggests one should do, to support Sen. Kerry because he will eventually formulate something coherent (OTJ training, I suppose) or at least manage the "drift" better is reckless at best when we are, whether we choose to believe it or not, in a war.

True, muddling through sometimes works, but that approach to the rise of radical Islamism-practiced by administrations of both political parties through the course of two decades, BTW-helped to provide us with that open piece of land in lower Manhattan and the gleaming new limestone wall of the Pentagon I see from my office window every day.

As much as the Bush administration frustrates through missteps (hopefully learning along the way, as well), at least it seems to understand the fundamental fact that we are at war. That crucial distinction seems to be lost on Sen. Kerry as he continues to articulate a law-enforcement approach to the problem.

I try not to see the presidential race as choosing between the lesser of two evils: I believe that both men, though flawed, truly strive to do right by their country. I just think that Pres. Bush understands that we are at war and Sen. Kerry does not.

On the Cambodia thing, personally i dont really care, but i do find it weird and it doesnt make me like the guy any better. Mainly, lets not pretend it was a throw away line. Kerry was making a serious argument predicated on the fact that he was in Cambodia being shot at by Cambodians and he remembered it bitterly because it was x-mas. Without being in Cambodia the argument made absolutely no sense.
It would be equivalent to me saying I was in Canada last year and was robbed on the street, therefore Canada is a dangerous place. But then it turns out I was actually in Seattle. My response that, oh, I was close to Canada doesnt solve the problem.

“This insipid little bit about Kerry 'lying to the American people' about being in Cambodia on Christmas is exactly the kind of trivia that people on the right, in their mentally deficient worldview, base their decisions on.

Kerry was actually in Cambodia in January and February following that Christmas.”

Your explanation simply does not hold water. John Kerry repeatedly was very explicit about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. His language was detailed and very precise. Furthermore, the evidence is piling up that Kerry probably never set foot in Cambodia whatsoever.

These same people who would critique Kerry as a man based on a tiny error would excuse every mistake of Bush's due to sympathy with his policy positions. Critique of his character is dismissed because, after all, 'he's a good Republican'..

The sad thing is that this butchery of reason whereby a tiny error is elevated to a character destroying flaw, is a reversion to the principles of reverse reasoning. The reasoning employed by witch trials, Medieval church scientists, and the like. It shows how fragile discourse is, how parties who seek to destroy discourse have every advantage available to them.

I don't see how anyone can claim Kerry will have a better strategy. Look at the people he has surrounded himself with in his campaign and suppose that they are examples of the kind of people who will serve in his administration, So far (before all the airbrushing on his web site) they have gotten his dates of military service wrong, attributed another officers missions to him, and claimed he was vice-chair of the intel committee.
His only way to get from our allies what he has promised the American people is to sell us out with signing on the the World Court, Kyoto, or any other euro-weenie plan that puts us in our place.

The supprted-the-war but opposed-the-postwar position is untenable. The shitty postwar came with the war, because Iraq presented and continues to present us with nothing but bad and less bad options. The American people recognize this, which is why Kerry's charges will not persuade anyone that he can do a better job with Iraq.

For the undecided voters, the election will come down to a contest between battle fatigue-induced isolationist yearnings and the painful, solemn realization that we are again involved in a decades-long global struggle for survival.

By claiming to support the war while criticizing the postwar failures, Kerry is sure to sweep the crucial pro-war second-thought liberal vote, which should tip Hyde Park, Williamstown, and Ann Arbor into the D column in November.

If, on the other hand, Kerry wishes to persuade millions of undecided voters, he should cease trying dance on the fine distinctions of the armchair nation-builders and start tacking isolationist. "Come home, America. Bring our brave troops home. Do not allow any more men and women to die for a mistake. Let the Iraqis rule Iraq. Let the Europeans fend for themselves."

Gore went hard populist in the waning days of Nov 2000, but it was too late. I'd bet good money that Shrum will convince Kerry to go isolationist/"Come Home America" in the last few days before this election. It's by far the best chance he has of winning this year.

Isnt there a difference between a tiny error and gross self-agrandizing falsehoods?

'evidence is piling up he never set foot in Cambodia'

That is pure unadulterated BS. Of course, if you believe the Swift Boat Dudes, I guess Kerry, like, is a puppy killer and stuff.

Please show a source for Senator Harkin's claim to be a Viet Nam vet. I've never heard or read of him making this claim though he was a jet pilot in the Navy.

And please tell us how the Bush Admistration plans to 'fix things'. I'm glad to see you admit things need fixing though. Of course, I don't see why we should trust those responsible for screwing up so badly to be able to fix them.

As for Cambodia, it's unclear where Kerry was that Christmas. It is true that he was running missions to drop off CIA personnel and still has a hat given to him by a CIA agent.

And if you want to fight the battle of 'veteran lies', there remain serious questions about George Bush's service.

The bottom line is Kerry volunteered to go to Viet Nam, he fought honorably and was awarded medals. George Bush used his father's connections to get into the Texas Air National Guard and avoided service in Viet Nam.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2000/05/23/1_year_gap_in_bushs_guard_duty/

I agree that this is a stupid story, but I would also advise that if George Bush spent his postwar years claiming to have repeatedly violated Soviet airspace in his NG fighter it would be an issue.

"On the Cambodia thing, personally i dont really care, but i do find it weird and it doesnt make me like the guy any better."

You should personally care. John Kerry is running for president. He is not trying to be our next dog catcher. I think I’m being very fair describing this lie as similar to someone lying about their mother’s death to get some time off from work. This is not an "ordinary" fib. There are lies and there are lies! Some lies are beyond the pale. John Kerry’s lie is most disturbing and should make us all cringe.

"In fact, other nation-building efforts over the past decade have gone reasonably well, when well planned and executed."

Cambodia ?
Bosnia, where the UN stood by and watched a genocide?
Rwanda, the same?
Haiti, still a mess not one by two "multilateral interventions" later?
Kosovo, where NATO became the air force for a disreputable guerrilla army?
The Congo, still bleeding?
Liberia?
Sierra Leone?

Where do I look on the map for "gone reasonably well" ?

"The fundamental problem with the argument is that if you study policy long enough then you are forced to act. You can nuance this thing to death until the problem forces action on an unacceptable course. Isn't that what the Bush bashers are saying about 911. He studied the problem to long and missed all the signs?"

Uhh, no, that is a strawman on your part. The criticism against Bush is that he ignored the problem as long as he could because he really, really wanted to blow a wad in missile defense, and then when someone finally got through to tell him of how deep and immediate the terrorist threat was, he went fishing, and vacationed the next 30 days. The criticism against Bush is that he didn't pick a National Security Advisor, or a Secretary of Defense, or an Attourney General, he picked additional political flacks, wholy unsuited to defending this nation.

It does no good for John Kerry to present a detailed plan about Iraq. I cannot be implemented until January at the earliest, and the "facts on the ground" will be different then. They will likely be different before Novemebr 2nd. In addition, the odds are very good that we are not getting full disclosure about IRaq from our this administration, so there is no foundation to build a detailed plan on. It does no good to say "I will dedicate 50,000 troops to being order to Sadr City" when tomorrow Sadr City insurgents may collapse over the capture of Sadr, or may riot in a way that requires 100,000 troops.

In contrast, Bush does have all the information at his fingertips, and can affect events immediately, but still offers no details on how we will win Iraq.

All Kerry can do, and needs to do, is indicate how his approach would be different. And he has. If choose to believe Bush is equally or more capable of bringing former allies onto our side, of calming the anti americanism spreading throughout the middle east, of building the new alliances that are needed to win the war on terror, then by all means, vote for him. You are grossly mistaken, but vote for him.

Kerry was actually in Cambodia in January and February following that Christmas.

Matter of fact, no, he was not. Or, so say those who served with him.

And why won't he sign hte 180 to open up his records to the public, so the public can verify his claims? In one move, he could silence and discredit his detractors. But he won't do it, despite the fact that Bush did so with HIS records... at Democrat insistance.

Kinda makes you wonder what Kerry's hiding, doesn't it?

“As for Cambodia, it's unclear where Kerry was that Christmas.”

Unclear? Not according to John Kerry’s campaign staff. They now admit that he did not spend Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. If you can’t believe Kerry’s own people---who can you believe? The crap has hit the fan and we now know that John Kerry is willing to lie about things that normal people wouldn’t even consider.

grr.. no edit

"It" cannot be implemented...

... to "bring" order...

If "you" choose...

"Has Kerry managed to spin up a position on Korea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, or anywhere else of critical importance yet? Just wondering, seems kinda like somethin he'd want to do, running for president and all."

I agree, so far as it goes. But what are Bush's positions on either North Korea or Iran? You'd think he'd have them, being president and all.

A certain segment of his followers think he's going to overthrow the Iranian regime. But then he goes around talking about being the "peace president" in his next term, and says nothing more about Iran except that he wants to "go to the U.N. first".

What's his policy? If he plans to use force, should he not let us know before the election, so we can decide if we want that kind of president?

Back in 2000, he quite intentionally derailed the Sunshine policy that South Korea was pursuing toward North Korea. The North subsequently took theirk 8,000 nuclear fuel rods out from under international inspections, and quite possibly built an arsenal of nukes with them.

Since then, the North has clearly been in a pattern of endless stalling -- saying they're negotiating, then angrily pulling out at the last minute. The CIA things they build 6 or 8 nuclear warheads during this "stalling" period.

We can't stall forever. What's Bush's policy?

TMorgan, if Kerry wants me to believe he can be more successful than Bush, he needs to tell me why, aka give me details. He seems to think that because he isn't Bush, everyone (France & Germany) will suddently do what we ask of them... well, I don't buy that, so he needs to convince me.

The criticism against Bush is that he ignored the problem as long as he could because he really, really wanted to blow a wad in missile defense, and then when someone finally got through to tell him of how deep and immediate the terrorist threat was, he went fishing, and vacationed the next 30 days. The criticism against Bush is that he didn't pick a National Security Advisor, or a Secretary of Defense, or an Attourney General, he picked additional political flacks, wholy unsuited to defending this nation.

Now I understand where you are coming from, Clinton and his team of non-political policy wonks studied the problem for 8 years and put a plan in place for Gore to execute, but when Bush stole the election it was up to Bush to execute Clinton's policy. Unfortunately Bush went to his ranch and vactioned for a month (never doing any work) and then 911 happened.

President Bush puts in a Sec of State that had 30+ years in the military, served as deputy and then NSA to a president and fought more than one 4 month tour in Vietnam, he put in a college president that had also served on the NS staff, and he put in a former state AG that was robbed of reelection into a position.

Do I understand your thinking here?

“We can't stall forever. What's Bush's policy?”

President Bush is running against John Kerry. We do not live in a perfect world. Thus, you are dodging the most important question: who is the lesser of evils? We now know that Senator Kerry is willing to lie about matters unimaginable to the rest of us. Would you, for instance, even consider lying about your own country and fellow soldiers to help yourself politically? Well, would you?

_We can't stall forever. What's Bush's policy?_

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)"
State of the Union 2002

Lex has made the most sense so far, in particular with this comment:

"... but it's not at all clear that anyone else would not have made huge mistakes as well."

The U.S. always screws up in the initial phases of a big war. I found it painful to read about the first big U.S. operation in Afghanistan - the one to seal off Bin Laden's escape route - because I knew it wouldn't work. That sort of thing never works the first time.

Likewise all the mistakes of past administrations mentioned by Phil Carter meant nothing because each adminstration learns only from its own mistakes in its own war:

"As I wrote in June 2003 for the Washington Monthly, we have always known that it takes more troops and time to secure the peace than to win the war — it's simply a more complicated endeavor. We ignored the lessons of Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo in Iraq, and we are now paying the price."

IMO the mistakes made in the occupation campaign in Iraq were pretty much inevitable. Expecting there not to be major learning curve for the first major campaign of each major war is plain asking too much.

The Wehrmacht had such great success in the 1940 campaign against France because it had made most of its learning curve mistakes in Poland the year before.

Our conquest of Iraq went so well because we had learned from mistakes in Afghanistan.

And our occupation campaign in Iran will be much better executed because of our mistakes in the Iraq occupation campaign.

"LOOK - we screwed up the occupation campaign in Iraq! Isn't that amazing?"

"LOOK - the sun just rose in the east! Isn't that amazing?"

We do it better next time.

Form Kerry's biographer which makes it look like Kerry may have been confused about the month he was in Cambodia. Big F***** Deal.

"Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.

And if we're going to trash candidates, many think President Bush went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard.

The facts remain the Kerry VOLUNTEERED for service in Viet Nam and won five medals. George Bush used his father's connections to get into the Texas Air National Guard.

Looks like there are some uncertainties about what happened more than 35 years ago, but there's much less uncertainty about the fact that Bush was always considerably further from Cambodia than Kerry.

Matthew Cromer,

Do you even care that Kerry will do and say anything to anyone to get elected?

Oh give me a break. You sound like the same people who crowed about this when Clinton got elected in '92. What did we get? 8 years of the greatest economic growth and a moderate President. What do we get with Bush? Someone who actually "say[s] anything to anyone to get elected". If you don't believe me, just ask the evangelicals.

Dan, I would've never found your blog if it wasn't for Kevin Drum, but I'm glad you did. It's nice to know that there's someone on the right with a clear sense of history.

Do you even care that his claimed experiences in Vietnam are largely fraudulent? Do you care that he proposes 2 trillion dollars in increased spending?

You have no proof of the former, except vets who didn't even know Kerry at the time, and the latter is laughable. If you want to make a point, don't regurgitate Rush Limbaugh.

Do you care that he will appoint leftists to the supreme court?

Oh boy. Yeah, he’s going to appoint a bunch of commies. Yikes, get a grip man. You sound like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory. If you want to have a debate, don’t bring up ridiculous unproven things.

...and from another one of your comments...

The most important role of President, particularly in a time of war, is that of commander in chief. John Kerry is utterly unfit for that job...

Too bad Tommy Franks, an actual War Hero like Kerry, thinks that he's fit to be Commander In Chief. Not to mention that there are plenty of other conservatives who think the same way. Crikey.

"He seems to think that because he isn't Bush, everyone (France & Germany) will suddently do what we ask of them... well, I don't buy that, so he needs to convince me."

No, they won't do everything we ask of them, but I'm sure they and a lot of other countries will be more willing to work with us because of the stylistic change at the head.

"Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. "

Kerry _claims_ he went into Cambodian waters. He also claimed he was there on Christmas which is definately wrong, so that source is hardly definitive.
As of yet not a single person has verified that claim. At best some of his supporters from the era say it was possible. Why hasnt a single person come out and said 'yes, we were in Cambodia January 21. I remember because i was scared shitless'

And the FACT remains that the vast majority of Kerry's fellow and commanding officers think he is unfit to be president.

Well George Bush 'claims' he was in the Texas Air National Guard for the missing year. In fact, there's a $10,000 reward for anyone that does corrobrate Bush's claim. No one's come forward. Makes you wonder why now don't it?

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/bush_guard.html

You know, I've searched through many stories which have big headlines about the campaign saying Kerry lied about about Cambodia, but not a one of them has any substance under the headline to show that. The worst is that they don't have an answer, and frankly, they don't need one.

Everyone KNOWS that the CIA operated in Cambodia illegally during the war. Kerry's command chain denies "ordering him" to go to Cambodia, but they would have never given such an order anyway. They would be culpable. They did say "Take this CIA guy where he says to go", and that's what he did.

No one would ever have to say "Go to cambodia". they would just have to say "Take me 70 miles up river", and with a wink and a nod, it was done. There was never a reason to tell the Crew "welcome to Cambodia", and only if they were paying attention to the maps (which they had no reason to do) would they be able to tell one section of river bank was cambodian vs vietnamese.

The Daft Boat Veterans for Bush have lied repeatedly about their experiences, the situation and their funding. There was no impenetrable barrier at the border, they did operate right at the border many times, they are being funded by a right wing idealogue who has lied repeatedly in his own life, and these leaders of the not-so-swift veterans either lied about their experiences 3 decades ago, or they are lying about them now. Either way they are lying, and still have no credible evidence Kerry has lied.

lex says:

"The "won the war but botched the peace" argument is therefore bogus. The inevitable consequence of the war was the collapse of all effective authority in Iraq. We should have the honesty and moral clarity to admit that, if the war was the right thing to do-- and in view of the shredding of the sanctions' effectiveness by oil-for-fraud, it appears it was-- then we have to accept a period of chaos and turmoil and high loss of life as the wages of this war. "

While I acknowledge your general point that there will always be some level of anarchy and insecurity following the removal of a totalitarian state, when applied to Iraq I think it lets the administration off the hook on several levels:

1) Looking at the demographics of Iraq, is it reasonable to believe that there will ever be a peaceful democracy there? Given that 60% of the population is Shia strongly influenced by Iran, and given that these shia are extremely distrustful of the USA after being abandoned by the US when they rebelled against Saddam following Gulf War I, that the US would ever be able to build a trusting relationship with the majority of Iraqi population.

I think that if,prior ot the war, you polled MidEast experts what the most likely outcome would be from the removal of Saddam, I think most would have said the breakup of the country and the strengthening of Iranian influence over the southern oil fields.

The only thing that can forestall that is likely a long term (we're talking decades) occupation of Iran by US forces.

It does not appear to me that the Bush administration accurately assessed the likely outcomes of the removal of Saddam.

2) Look who we are fighting now in Iraq:

poor shia volunteers under this guy Al Sadr; and

secular sunnis in Falluja who are former baathists and want their gravy train back.

Neither of these two arab constituencies had any involvement in Al Queda or the 911 attacks, and did not represent a threat to the US mainland or its interests abroad.

Sitting here on August 18th, it looks like the US has responded to attacks on it by fundamentalist Waahabi Sunnis from Saudi Arabia and Egpyt by getting itself involved in fights with other Arab groups. Is it unreasonable to worry that the US has in effect increased the population from which madmen like Bin Laden draw their suicide bombers and insurgents?

That's what worries me, that instead of killing those who represent a current threat to the US and "draining the swamp" so that more poor, pissed off Arabs aren't misled into thinking the US is the root of their problem, the US has increased the pool from which terrorists are drawn while not killing any one of terrorists repsonsible for 911.

3) You misstate the puropse of the sanctions. The purpose of the sanctions and no fly zones was to punish Saddam for not complying with UN weapons inspections programs and to prevent Saddam from building WMD and from hurting the shias in the South and the Kurds in the North.

And knowing what we know now (no WMD, the last 10 years have been the best years in centuries for the Iraqi Kurds as far as economic growth and self determination, much better than what they can expect to get in a "democratic" Iraq) the sanctions actually seemed to have achieved their primary purpose.

The Oil for Food program was a means to ameliorate the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people, and the fact the $$ were siphoned it by Saddam and 100 cents on the dollar did not reach the people no more makes the program a failure than the fact that the Pentagon wastes money makes our military a failure.

Tom and Lex

"It is never clear that someone else won't make 'huge mistakes'" - does that mean that we should reward those who _do_ by reelecting them?

The whole problem with this idea that "we will do it better in Iran" is that Iran is a different problem. Are we going to "learn the lessons of the last war?" I guess actually _thinking_ about the post war "Phase IV" would be an improvement. But the lessons of WW1 led to the Maginot line and the lessons of Gulf War 1 led to the wildly overoptimistic post war planning evident here.

Finally, if invading Iran is the goal, it sure isn't being made an issue in this campaign. I wonder how the support for Bush would change if people _knew_ Bush was planning to go to war with Iran as you are suggesting?

David - it's a little telling that all you can go on about is this made-up Cambodia thing. The original post was about execution - a vital skill that Bush has proven himself fairly inept at. Defend Bush, by all means - no one would expect anything else from you - but slandering Kerry is not only inappropriate - it's irrelevent.

Why not really help Bush by addressing Zakaria's excellent questions:

• Did the United States have to go to war before the weapons inspectors had finished their job?
• Did it have to invade with insufficient troops to provide order and stability in Iraq?
• Did it have to occupy a foreign country with no cover of legitimacy from the world community?
• Did it have to ignore the State Department's postwar planning?
• Did it have to pack the Iraqi Governing Council with unpopular exiles, disband the army and engage in radical de-Baathification?
• Did it have to spend a fraction of the money allocated for Iraqi reconstruction -- and have that be mired in charges of corruption and favoritism?

While responding to this list, please remind yourself periodically that Zakaria has been consistently neutral and has supported Bush in the past roughly as often as not and is therefore not a member of the "vast liberal media."

Can one of you Kerry supporters show me where President Bush avoided the war by going into the guard? He joined the Guard in 68 when he was 22 years old. The draft didn't kick in until 1968. It could be argued he would have been drafted, but I believe they went for 18 year old males first and then went for the older guys. In 1964 when he was 18 the war wasn't a big deal. President Johnson, a democrat I believe, escalated the war while W was in college. By 68 the war was very unpopular and he could have enlisted then but decided to serve in the guard. I think you detractors are being very flipant about his service.

George W Bush and Vision? I'll give him credit for a sort of Vision in Iraq. Too bad Iraq ranked way down the list of countries that posed a security threat to the U.S. Can somebody explain Bush's vaunted vision in regards to North Korea or Iran or Pakistan or Israel/Palestine or Saudi Arabia? It seems as if he used up all his vision on Iraq.

The needed vision was simple: root out terrorism. On that front, Bush has at best kept the status quo, at worst made it much worse. Kerry will improve that simply by being elected (which looks like a sure thing) and lessening the hatred of the U.S. around the world. Let's admit the obvious, Iraq was a mistake. Saddam was a cowering fool intent on holding on to his crumbling nation and was no threat to anyone but his own people. And he was even quite good at keeping terrorists out of his country, certainly better than Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

And what's worse? Saying you were in the wrong country or invading the wrong country?

Bush is a LIAR:

In Feb the Boston Globe reported:

"After a year in flight school, Bush spent five months learning how to fly an F-102 fighter-interceptor and then 22 months as a part-time pilot. He stopped flying in April 1972 -- 30 months before his formal commitment would normally have ended.

"Nonetheless, the biography of Bush on the US State Department's website credits him with almost six years in the F-102's cockpit -- two years on active duty flying the plane and nearly four more years of part-time service as an F-102 pilot. The websites of at least five American embassies -- those in Germany, Italy, Pakistan, Vietnam, and South Korea -- use the identical language, even though Bush spent barely two years flying the airplane."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0228-07.htm

“You have no proof of the former, except vets who didn't even know Kerry at the time, and the latter is laughable. If you want to make a point, don't regurgitate Rush Limbaugh.”

“David - it's a little telling that all you can go on about is this made-up Cambodia thing”

Excuse me, but John Kerry’s own campaign admits that the senator lied. The game is over. Here is Robert Pollock’s article in the WSJ:

“Last Wednesday Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan sent me a statement saying that "During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia. . . . On December 24, 1968 Lieutenant John Kerry and his crew were on patrol in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia deep in enemy territory." I asked for clarification as to whether the "one occasion" was Christmas Eve 1968. "No," was the reply.”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005483

"And why won't he sign hte 180 to open up his records to the public, so the public can verify his claims? In one move, he could silence and discredit his detractors. But he won't do it, despite the fact that Bush did so with HIS records... at Democrat insistance.

Kinda makes you wonder what Kerry's hiding, doesn't it?"

Umm... I just read through all the comments, and I can't say much about knowing the coverage in the US (I'm in Canada), but the understanding here and the UK, is that Bush has in fact only released portions of his records (and I believe the Associated Press is in a court case attempting to gain access to Bush's records), due to his refusal to actually finish releasing them as he had promised to Tim Russet (On Meet the Press 2-8-2004),.

Now that isn't to say any of the accusations against Bush are valid, but there simply isn't enough documentation that the Bush campaign is willing to release for anyone to determine the truth of the matter.

Cheers,
Adrian

Sources:
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/8985661.htm

"George W. Bush lied about his military service record. The lie can be found in his own 1999 campaign autobiography (as written by Karen Hughes), where he dramatically describes his experience as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

On page 34 of A Charge to Keep, Mr. Bush claims that, after learning to fly the F-102 fighter jet, he was turned down for Vietnam duty because "had not logged enough flight hours" to qualify for a combat assignment. Before going on to recall the "challenging moments" that involved close formation drills at night during poor weather, he adds: "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years."

In light of what journalists and other researchers have learned since the publication of Mr. Bush’s book, his account is unmistakably fraudulent. "

http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/conason.asp

Just a rude thought, directed at several posters who might recognize themselves:

Anyone who bases their vote on Kerry's Vietnam stint or Bush's National Guard stint is a four star moron. There are ample reasons to vote for or against either candidate based on their rather more recent records and predelictions. If we wanted a genuine War Hero with a Grade A++++ Purple Heart, we'd be celebrating the close of Bob Dole's term right about now. Please, people, look at your consciences, look at where these guys stand on matters of War, Peace, and (the subject of Dan's post) simple operational effectiveness. Debating stupidity like whether Kerry ever visited Cambodia, or Bush visited an Alabama National Guard post is a waste of time and emotion.

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

It was May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list.

Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.

“On page 34 of A Charge to Keep, Mr. Bush claims that, after learning to fly the F-102 fighter jet, he was turned down for Vietnam duty because "had not logged enough flight hours" to qualify for a combat assignment. Before going on to recall the "challenging moments" that involved close formation drills at night during poor weather, he adds: "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years."

In light of what journalists and other researchers have learned since the publication of Mr. Bush’s book, his account is unmistakably fraudulent.”

And what is your point? What evidence does the very partisan Joe Conason offer? None? Wow, isn’t that interesting. However, John Kerry’s own campaign has had to admit that he lied about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. Conason and his ilk are obviously getting desperate.

Even though this didn't start out as a Bush NG post, here is a link to an NRO article on his service. I know you Kerry guys will say it is fraudulant, but isn't great how conservatives quote sources and liberals bash them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

A few highlights

"The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty."

The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.

The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."

"Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House."

Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

“Debating stupidity like whether Kerry ever visited Cambodia, or Bush visited an Alabama National Guard post is a waste of time and emotion.”

Nope, John Kerry lied about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. He slandered his own country and fellow soldiers. This is not a minor league lie. Also, you have no hard evidence whatsoever to dispute President Bush’s national guard service. You are therefore, perhaps innocently, mixing apples and oranges. To be blunt, you are not presenting a rational argument.

Just exactly how does Kerry saying he spent Christmas in Cambodia slander the US and his fellow soliders?

Thanks, Mark. You quote Bush's statement of his policy -- which I post, again, below. Explain to me, now, how he has applied this to either Iran or North Korea, or how he intends to apply it?

Is it Bush's intention to go to war against Iran if they don't stop their nuclear program and submit to inspections? If so, why hasn't he said so?

I'm particularly interested in the last part: "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

North Korea is specifical mentioned by Bush as part of this "Axis of Evil". They are probably now, for the first time in their history, in posession of a nuclear arsenal. And they have a remarkably advanced long-range missile program.

Meanwhile, our diplomatic and military posture toward North Korea is extraordinarily low-key. The administration isn't even talking about whether they have WMDs. And they just proposed a troop restructuring that shifts troops out of South Korea.

How, then, does the below policy apply?

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)"

Scott - to address your points in reverse order:

The Oil for Food program was a means to ameliorate the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people, and the fact the $$ were siphoned it by Saddam and 100 cents on the dollar did not reach the people no more makes the program a failure than the fact that the Pentagon wastes money makes our military a failure.

This is silly, for three reasons. First, the scale of OFF is unprecedented in history. Saddam skimmed over $10 BILLION, and government officials in Russia alone received over $100 million. Saddam's take is several orders of magnitude larger than the waste and fraud re the Pentagon contracts. Second, some of Saddam's loot went to terrorist organizations. Third, the larger issue of course is that the actors and destinations involved-- the Saddam-Uday-Qusay, the Kremlin, Geneva banks and most ominously, the Russian mafia's (and the FSB's) favorite money-laundering point, Dubai-- make it very likely that some of the funds could easily have paid off Russian security officials or mafia elements seeking to sell off some of the former SU's vast stocks of N-B-C weapons.

3) The purpose of the sanctions and no fly zones was to punish Saddam for not complying with UN weapons inspections programs and to prevent Saddam from building WMD....And knowing what we know now (no WMD, the last 10 years have been the best years in centuries for the Iraqi Kurds as far as economic growth and self determination, much better than what they can expect to get in a "democratic" Iraq) the sanctions actually seemed to have achieved their primary purpose.

The details of OFF make it clear that, given the porousness of the former SU, the determination of the Russian and French regimes to do business with Saddam, the easy access to known mafia and terrorist laundering points like Geneva and Dubai, the enormous number of transactions and the huge sums involved, the sanctions regime by 2002 was collapsing. If I'm not mistaken, OFF was required to sustain French and Russian UNSC support for continued sanctions. In other words, sanctions meant OFF which meant the candy store of the former Soviet Union's N-B-C stocks were wide open to the FSB and the Russian mafia's business partners in Baghdad. Some "achievement."

2) [we're] fighting now in Iraq poor shia volunteers under this guy Al Sadr; and secular sunnis in Falluja who are former baathists and want their gravy train back. Neither of these two arab constituencies had any involvement in Al Queda or the 911 attacks, and did not represent a threat to the US mainland or its interests abroad.

Your strongest point, and a fair one. As I say, that's the argument that Kerry, if he's smart, would deploy behind the case for isolationist/withdrawal that I expect he'll make in the last week of the campaign.

....the US has responded to attacks on it by fundamentalist Waahabi Sunnis from Saudi Arabia and Egpyt by getting itself involved in fights with other Arab groups. Is it unreasonable to worry that the US has in effect increased the population from which madmen like Bin Laden draw their suicide bombers and insurgents?

I don't find the "hornet's nest" argument convincing. Far too early to tell who the next generation of jihadists are, or the likely effect of our behavior on AQ's recruiting efforts. You and I are casting in the dark on this.

instead of killing those who represent a current threat to the US and "draining the swamp" so that more poor, pissed off Arabs aren't misled into thinking the US is the root of their problem, the US has increased the pool from which terrorists are drawn while not killing any one of terrorists repsonsible for 911

Perhaps you have better sources than the rest of us but my understanding is that all the 9/11 perpetrators are dead. The mastermind of the plot, Khalid Muhammed, is in US custody.

I think that if,prior ot the war, you polled MidEast experts what the most likely outcome would be from the removal of Saddam, I think most would have said the breakup of the country and the strengthening of Iranian influence over the southern oil fields.

??? Why the weasel words, "strengthening of influence"? You either control the oil fields or you don't. Are you seriously suggesting that Iran will invade southern Iraq and occupy it? If so, then we'd absolutely have to put troops in Iraq to prevent this. I think you should check your "expert" sources again.

1) Looking at the demographics of Iraq, is it reasonable to believe that there will ever be a peaceful democracy there?

But you yourself said that the Kurds had achieved democracy! What precisely is so magical about that charmed Kurdish race that makes them capable of creating an effective parliament, well-functioning courts, a free press, women's rights etc and their sunni and shi'a brethren totally incapable of same?

Given that 60% of the population is Shia strongly influenced by Iran, and given that these shia are extremely distrustful of the USA after being abandoned by the US when they rebelled against Saddam following Gulf War I, that the US would ever be able to build a trusting relationship with the majority of Iraqi population.

Perhaps your strongest point. Agree that the US should woulda developed a strong relationship, I suppose through intermediaries, with Sistani prior to the war. IMHO, that we "betrayed" the shi'a no more makes such a relationship impossible than did our "betrayeal" of the Kurds.

The logical conclusion to your argument is that we should not have invaded Iraq, period. Not because sanctions succeeded-- they'd fallen apart by 2002 and Saddam's French and Russian pimps were working overtime to make sure they couldn't work-- but because of the sheer immensity of the task of nation-building.

This is a perfectly respectable position, one that's more coherent and honest (and to the voters, I belive, more compelling) than the pro-war anti-postwar straddle that we're now hearing from Zakaria, Kerry et al. In fact, it would win over a great number of old-school republicans like WIll, Buckley, Scowcroft types generally.

I do not believe that Kerry will win the election so long as he tries to maintain this straddle. He should simply attack the war and repeat his catch phrases about coming home, not dying for a "mistake", and no more nation-building. A sure winner for Kerry. Wonder how long it'll take Shrum to figure it out?

Appalled Moderate,

If we wanted a genuine War Hero with a Grade A++++ Purple Heart, we'd be celebrating the close of Bob Dole's term right about now. Please, people, look at your consciences, look at where these guys stand on matters of War, Peace, and (the subject of Dan's post) simple operational effectiveness. Debating stupidity like whether Kerry ever visited Cambodia, or Bush visited an Alabama National Guard post is a waste of time and emotion.

AMEN. Can we please get back to topic here? Leave the Cambodia stuff for another thread.

two things, Dan

one, it was disappointing to see you, Brad and Matt, all of whose intellects and perspectives I respect, discussing at such length what is fundamentally a category error. having a detailed, carefully crafted, rhetorically consistent, and heavily publicized list of interlocking objectives (PDF) is not at all the same thing as having a genuine strategy. amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics. critics talk about art, artists talk about brushes. and anyway no plan survives contact with the enemy. so it's nice to see a little recouler.

two, re deciding which is the lesser evil, there is abundant evidence that the existing two-party system is structurally bankrupt and within a few elections of collapse. the current situation has the lege and exec less vulnerable to the displeasure of their "natural" constituencies than to the displeasure of the informal networks which control, de facto, the federal bureaucratic process, the major donors, and the "news cycle". Kevin Phillips recounts the history of this trend very nicely in Arrogant Capital. but regardless of which party you consider more so, both parties are corrupt, and corruption effectively guarantees poor management over the long run.

so the Bush administration's military adventurism and fiscal irresponsibility is not ultimately a consequence of a grand strategy poorly implemented, nor of "post-9/11" necessities. it's a consequence of a systemic failure of the checks and balances, introduced by the founders, to prevent exactly the current scenario, by encouraging constant dynamic tension between factions.

to commenters complaining about Kerry not having a better or grander strategy, if you believe that we are at war then you might want to STFU about strategy for a few minutes and consider logistical constraints. specifically what sacrifices you are willing -- no, eager -- to make. wartime means sacrifices from citizens, not just troops.

to those of you complaining about Bush's f#$&ed up process, don't just blindly assume that Kerry is immune. the difference between Kerry and Bush is that it is possible -- just barely conceivable -- that a Kerry administration will be slightly more responsive to its constituency than the Bush folks; slightly more responsible militarily and fiscally; slightly less painfully gullible and slightly more inclined toward empiricism. but they will also be well and truly fscked in practical and logistical terms, and it will be up to you to enforce and demand that responsiveness in the face of very powerful opposition. otherwise Kerry's tenure will be Clinton's without the good parts...

“AMEN. Can we please get back to topic here? Leave the Cambodia stuff for another thread”

Your request is irrational. It does not pass the laugh test. The “Cambodia stuff” clearly informs us of John Kerry’s moral bankruptcy. It is absurd to discuss a candidate’s policies while ignoring their character.

Really, the idea that one lie makes a man unfit for the presidency is an utter joke.

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

Drezner,

Yours must be the longest strip-tease in the annals of blogdom :-P

;-)

... STFU about strategy for a few minutes and consider logistical constraints. specifically what sacrifices you are willing -- no, eager -- to make. wartime means sacrifices from citizens, not just troops.

Fair point. For starters I would gladly pay an additional $1000 in taxes + an extra $1000 in gasoline costs (assuming $0.50 tax) to help fund the costs of nation-building in Iraq and to reduce our dependence on OPEC. I would gladly open up ANWR for drilling. If my (European) employer would a