you just... can't.

Because he is a man, with a plan, a canal, Panama ?

Daniel Drezner wrote:

Let's respond to these in reverse order. The last point I find really unpersuasive three reasons. First, a President Kerry would be unable to implement any major domestic policy proposal without the consent of Congress, and there is no chance that Kerry will be able to command disciplined majorities in both houses. Which means Kerry will have to deal with the Republicans. And here, Kerry's weak Senatorial record is actually an argument in his favor, because I'm happy to have some gridlock in DC for a while.

That is just so false for three reasons.

First of all, divided government does not equal gridlock nor does it automatically lead to less spending. As we saw when Democrats controlled the Senate during the first half of Bush’s term non-defense/homeland security discretionary spending went from about a 4-5 percent increase to about 15 percent. Since Republicans regained control of the Senate the rate of growth has been declining. More importantly when there is political pressure from the public to “get something done” as there was with a Medicare prescription drug benefit, we’ve seen how Senate Democrats were able to successfully used the threat of a filibuster to bid up the Medicare prescription drug benefit from about $300 Billion to the current $534 Billion monstrosity.

Second, over forty percent of the federal budget is tied up in entitlement programs which are on auto-pilot. Bush is the only major party candidate running who favors Social Security reform to reduce the program’s unfunded liability. If there were gridlock, it means we’d go another four years without reform which means that more baby boomers would be locked into their benefits and likely to resist any “cuts.” The best time to reform the program is before they begin retiring not after. More importantly we had divided government in the 1980s the last time we tried to “fix” Social Security and the result was no personal retirement accounts and a huge increase in payroll taxes (which is about the only proposal that Kerry hasn’t disavowed).

Finally despite your assurances (more like “wishful thinking”), there is no guarantee that there will not be a Democrat-controlled Senate after either this or the 2006 election. Nor for that matter with only about couple vote majority in the Senate, would it be difficult for a Democrat President to pick off the four or five more liberal Republican Senators to get his agenda through there. As far as the House goes, past experience has shown that when the executive branch teams up with one of the two legislative Houses, they are more likely to prevail than the other way around.

Bottom line, a Kerry presidency would only serve to guarantee that we would not get any sort of meaningful Social Security reform (particularly since a Kerry victory while demagoguing the issue would make other politicians reluctant to touch the third rail) before the Baby Boomers retire and it would not necessarily guarantee “gridlock” on other issues either, particularly if there is a Democrat controlled Senate again.

Bravo. I admire you're willingness to think out loud like this. No cheap shots, no stupidity. Why don't more authors write like this?

Not to beat a dead horse here (and Dan, I really like this series of posts!), but I don't think you should call it a "P-value."

It is (and you sometimes do get it right) a probability, plain and simple.

I guess you could call it a p-value, in that you sometimes use the term "P(x)" to indicate the probability of event X (your voting for Kerry, in this instance).

But P-value is really a term of art: it's what you calculate when you're doing Fisherian statistical hypothesis testing. It's a specific kind of probability, and not the kind you're using here.

Sorry to get all pedantic.

Here is a better explanation, from the ever-excellent Mahalanobis.

Why should you trust Kerry? Well, you can certainly read, say, Matt Bai's article and make up your own mind, but I should also just mention two names:

Joe Biden and Dick Holbrooke.

And, for my own bugaboo, on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation, I think Kerry is unquestionably superior to Bush who has let the issue languish while off on his Iraqi misadventure which, as you say, has diminished the aura of American power around the world.

I'd just add a few random thoughts:

1. It's unsurprising that people are guessing as to where Bush goes next. People guessed up to March 2003 whether we'd really go to war in Iraq. But thus far, since 9/11, we have not seen Bush depart from the basic strategy he's outlined for the War on Terror, i.e., a strategy premised upon marginalizing, disrupting and if necessary removing regimes that are part of the problem.

2. It's true that Bush rarely admits mistakes - we all know if he admitted one in the debate we'd have heard nothing else for the rest of the month - but he has shown the willingness to change tactics, as has been done a few times in Iraq. The willingness of wartime leaders to do public penance is overrated.

3. As for Kerry, he went out of his way in the debates not to endorse anything resembling liberty or democracy in the Arab world and not to say anything good about Israel or bad about the UN. The Bai piece showed his concern for working with the existing Arab despots. It is simply inconceivable that Kerry would do anything that brought down the opprobrium of the defenders of the status quo.

4. As for the army, Congress has been taking care of making sure it gets bigger.

Dan, I think you've left out the biggest threat Kerry poses to us; he has no idea how to prevent terrorists from hitting us again.

Kerry like to wail and moan about how only five percent of containers being shipped into the U.S. being inspected. Assuming that's true, he's right, that's a concern.

However, as any NFL fan will tell you; no matter how defensive you get, no matter how much money you spend on defense, the offense is always going to find a way to slip through. It will always be possible... nay, LIKELY, that determined, committed poeple will always find a way to get through whatever security cracks exist. And who, I ask is more committed than the ideologically driven bloodthirsty idiots we find ourselves faced with today? The only way to really deal with the problem is the elemination of the offense.

Not very possible in football... essential in national security.

The only way to really put a stop to this is to put a stop to THEM... not just by putting up increasingly defensive postures, but by puttinga good offense into play. Thta's the real best hope. Killing or capturing our enemy before they strike, while showing the remainder of the world that freedom is spreading, (A free people being less likelyto adopt radical casues like Usama BinLaden's) is the only way to deal with this issue. John Kerry simply doesn't get this simple and profound equation. George W. Bush meanwhile, has made it his policy.

Make no mistake; There's a bit of a mess going on in the middle east right now. But I ask you to consider; when is the last time you ever saw any kind of a major re-construction project where there was not a serious mess for a while?

We're re-building a society... one the Iraqi people have repeatedly and flatly stated that they WANT rebuilt... as did those in Afghanistan.

All this goes right by John Kerry.

To what degree do the foreign policy challenges of the past reflect those of the present which Kerry will have to answer? American attitudes toward the use of force were much different in 1990 than they were in 2003, thanks to a series of low-cost successful interventions.

My main argument is that, unless you are a serious hawk who wants to invade Iran, our biggest challenges in the War on Terror now lie in the nation-building realm, traditional Democratic turf. Bush and Kerry would at this point be very similar in pursuing al-Qaeda via intelligence and the like.

Study of the Bush regime and inner-circle reminds of the Nazi regime of the mid-1930s. All are mediocre Middle Class mentalities, which do not so much reason, as express common beliefs from among their own set. Substitute Iron Will for Confidence, and you will begin to understand. Homeland Security was designed to be a new Gestapo, but fell far short of expectations. All the inner-circle gravitate around an unskilled leader, who seems to cast a mystical spell over the children. lgl

On foreign policy, Bush and his tight circle of
trusted advisers (mostly Cheney and Rice) have
conclusively and repeatedly demonstrated that they
are *only* worried about states. Their view is
that terrorist groups are only dangerous when they
have support and sponsorship from states. And all
their efforts are devoted to putting pressure on
states, often by direct military action.
Hence W's statement "I'm just not that cocerned
about bin Laden" once we had theoretically
installed a non-Taliban government in "control"
of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile the Bush-ites have ignored and even
harmed the painstaking work of international
police and intelligence co-operation which is
necessary to track down Al Qaeda. After 9/11
Syria was a good source of intelligence about AQ,
but the invasion of Iraq and Rumsfeld's aggressive
posture towards Syria stopped all that.

In contrast, Kerry has a broader view of what it
will take to halt AQ. He will restore
cooperation with other countries, and his
experience as a prosecutor and a painstaking
investigator of the BCCI scandal and the POW-MIA
hearings demonstrates that he has the ability
and the patience to manage such a long process.
He has a clear plan to improve our military
capability (2 extra divisions, plus double the
Special Forces) with the right kind of forces
to directly attack terrorists. And he would
surely have a more reality-based approach to
intelligence - Bush's politicization of the
intelligence process has been absolutely a
disaster. How are we going to recruit sources
inside AQ when issues like the Plame affair and
the passing of sensitive intelligence through
Ahmed Chalabi to Iran remain unresolved ?
Recovering from this won't be easy for anyone,
but the first step must be to get rid of Bush
and his gang. Also to restore our reputation in
the (moderate) Muslim world we have to get rid
of Gen Boykin and anyone associated with Abu
Ghraib - Rumsfeld, Miller, Sanchez.

We can also expect Kerry to quickly stop the
pointless waste of money on counter-productive
boondoggles such as (unworkable) missile defense
and development of (unusable) nuclear bunker-
busters. Instead more resources would go to
genuine homeland security (in NY and DC, not
Montana) and an accelerated Nunn-Lugar effort to
secure loose nuclear materials in the ex-USSR.

On domestic policy, we can expect more emphasis
on policies that actually work, rather than
policies chosen for tactical political effect.
We can also expect a return of some genuine
bipartisan spirit - at least with McCain, Hagel,
and Snowe/Collins/Chaffee.

Bottom line: since Bush has not admitted to any
mistakes or regrets, if he gets re-elected you
can expect that foreign policy will be another
4 years of the same. If you think the results
of that have been good (terrible relations with
allies, military bogged down alone in Iraq,
OBL more popular than ever in Arab countries)
then go ahead and vote that way. If you think we
need to be on a different track - in particular,
pursuing policies which will engage moderate
Muslims on our side against OBL - then you *must*
throw the bums out.

People like to say the Administration went in "without a plan to win the peace," which is absurd.

The strategy is ongoing. Some of it is dependent on not announcing what the strategy is. Hello?

Part of it is this: the Iraqis must quickly become able to defend and police their own country. For this to happen, they require training. Real-life training.

Sure we've left a few isolated pockets of resistance. And now, as is evident from the headlines, these terrorist slimeholes are being cleaned out by the Iraqi military, with some backup from the coalition.

It is the same technique employed by cats, bringing home dead prey for their kittens to play with. Then bringing home injuried prey for the kittens to learn to kill. Then they work their way up to hunting on their own.

We can't just kill everybody and leave and hand over the sheriff's badge. This new army needs some combat experience before we can leave.

On a related matter, for Kerry to leave the Korean nuclear deception and the Iranian nuke program on Bush's doorstep is disingenuous. The Iranian snowball started rolling downhill a long time ago, thanks to the allies Kerry is so fond of. And Iran became what it is today thanks to Jimmy Carter, who Kerry wants to emulate.

And the Korean disaster was put in place by Bill Clinton, with the able assistance of... who else? Jimmy Carter.

Kerry and the antiwar crowd want to go back to these policies of trusting dictators who have a record of betrayal, and bending over for our so-called allies who have stabbed us in the back.

Daniel, how can you overlook Kerry's obsession with going to the UN for protection, when it is now clear that the UN was in Saddam's pocket, even as today they refuse to act in Sudan or Iran because of similar reasons?

I guess you can ignore it if you decide it's not important. But Kerry thinks we really can go back to 9/10, and that the next day won't really be so bad.

“The critique of Kerry's own record of decision-making gives me the greatest pause. Kerry was on the wrong side of the nuclear freeze debate in the early eighties on the wrong side of the first Gulf War debate in the early nineties, and on the wrong side of the "lift-and-strike" option put forward by Bob Dole on Bosnia in 1995.”

With respect, the “wrong side” arguments are not arguments about his decision making process – but instead are arguments about the resulting decisions. Kerry may (or may not) have been wrong, but all of these positions are consistent with a pre 9/11 worldview with respect to the limits of military force as a political instrument. Greg D is correct in stating that 9/11 changed people’s thinking – including, I strongly suspect due to his decision-making process, John Kerry’s.

It seems your disquiet with respect to Kerry is primarily with respect to his decision-making process vs. Bush’s decision-making process. You are correct in you implied argument that they are fundamentally different. In fact, the difference is a significant distinction made in personality “typing” tests like the Meyers-Briggs type indicator.

As to the decision-making process itself, the arguments against Kerry essentially come down to a charge that he has no set of “core values” that guide his decision-making. “Jarring changes in direction”, “flip-flopping” and like charges, as well as the lack of “… love in the room…”, both point to a man whose decisions appear to be made as a result of calculation rather than “faith-based” conviction (or the “confidence created” reality you refer to later in the post) that truly is the hallmark of the GWB presidency. On the other hand, the arguments against Bush is that he refuses to account for new data to the point of being fundamentally incapable of recognizing, much less admitting, error.

In pop psychology terms (Meyers/Briggs Type indicator), Kerry appears to be a “perceiver” who constantly seeks additional data and resists “final” decisions. Bush, OTOH, is a “judger” who makes a decision and resists changing that decision even in the face of compelling evidence that he may be in error. In short, Kerry “adjusts” to new data, and Bush “resists” new data.

This seems to be the major difference in the decision making style of the two men. So, the question regarding decision-making becomes - are you more comfortable with someone who may err on the side of indecisiveness or someone who may err on the side of wrongheadedness?

I know where I stand. Give me more data!

You can't.

To me, this election boils down to the demonstrated
incompetence of Bush vs. the potential incompetence
of Kerry. Using your earlier framework, the former has
a p value of 100 and the latter a p value of 50.

More important, Bush has shown that any mistakes
he will make will be uncorrectable in his term, since he
will not respond to criticism by anyone outside his small
circle. Kerry, on the other hand, will probably respond
too much--he'll blow back and forth as first Republicans
and then Democrats attack him. This will not stop screwups
but will more likely keep them from being so enormous
that no one else can fix them later.

This is obviously not an argument "for" a candidate, just
an argument for who is likely to do the least damage
over the next four years, until someone better comes
along.

Korla Pundit writes: "People like to say the Administration went in 'without a plan to win the peace,' which is absurd."

Knight-Ridder:

In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.

Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.

The slide said: "To Be Provided."

The Russakoff - VandeHei criticism of Kerry - that he bogs down in indecision by listening to too many advisors - is one that was routinely levelled at Bill Clinton. Yet policy was immeasurably smarter and more carefully thought through under Clinton than in the current administration. Isn't it time to stop making a fetish of decisiveness? Government has a rhythm that forces decisions out of even the chronically indecisive and there is no evident benefit from shortcutting the consensus building process that gets us to decisions that have been analyzed with some reasonable care.

"And the Korean disaster was put in place by Bill Clinton, with the able assistance of... who else? Jimmy Carter."

As I've said any number of times on this blog, this simply is not true. When Clinton left office, NK's nuclear material was sealed and monitored. Now, it's almost certainly in nuclear weapons.

Whose fault is that?

Since you seem to already agree that Bush is doing it wrong (and are just unconvinced that Kerry is going to do it right), I think a good way of answering this question is to look at Kerry's vote in favor of the (second) Iraq war. There are two possible explainations for it:
1) Kerry legitimately has been changed by 9/11 and understands that he needs to update his relatively dovish sensibilities to respond to this new threat. Presumably, if that's the case, then it should reassure you that Kerry will do a good job on the war on terror (keeping in mind Richard Cownie's point that Kerry recognizes the importance of non-state actors in this whole deal, which is crucial and where he has a definite and decisive advantage over Bush)
2) Kerry was merely acting oppurtunistically and in his best political interests, trying to dispel future GOP allegations that he was a hopeless dove. Obviously this is the fear, so let's address it as if it were true. Presumably, it means that Kerry will react to terrorism by using a political calculus. Let's be clear, this is NOT a good thing. I am NOT defending it. But I think we can look at the likely outcomes, compare it to how the Bush administration acts, and see how much of a problem it really is. Daniel, you pointed out that Kerry really can't go hogwild domestically because the Republican congress will stop him cold. I think the same thing will happen if he starts getting cold-feet on the war on terror, and more importantly, I think Kerry is aware of this. For him, the primary group he needs to stay in the good graces of is McCain Republicans and Hawkish Democrats, IE, those who are most worried and ambivilant (of those who might consider voting for him) about him in the first place. The tradeoff for Kerry is the Michael Moore/Howard Dean wing of the Democratic Party, and I think that's a trade Kerry is willing to make. Kerry knows that the surest way to achieve re-election is to swing John McCain onto his side. The surest way to LOSE re-election is to have McCain run against him in 2008. Unless he is TRULY abysmal, Kerry will be able to beat back any Deaniac who would be able to mount a primary challange in '08 no sweat. Politically, it makes far more sense for Kerry to take a tough line on terror than it does for him to become a wimp.

The other important thing to note here is the whole "money where your mouth is" issue. Kerry has been saying he'll be as tough as Bush, but he just wants allies and the international community and all of them to play a role too. Ok, now let's assume Kerry CAN at least draw out some more support from the rest of the world (a fair assumption, at least compared to Bush). Now Kerry has to prove he'll DO something with the extra support he's been promised. Saying "I've got a commitment from Germany for 2000 troops to...stay in Berlin" sounds really stupid. The point is that in order to ASK the world for support, he has to being asking them to DO something, and since Kerry HAS to make good on his overriding campaign theme of working with the world, that implies that there will be an overarching goal they are working towards. What will it be? I'm not sure, but I'd imagine, judging from Kerry's campaign rhetoric it would be something along the lines of containing Iran/NK and/or counterproliferation efforts, two of the most important issues in the world today. Other actions I think are likely include more support (even if not actual troop presence) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regardless of whether Kerry is someone who has good instincts or not, the end result, while most certainly not perfect, is worth taking a look at. I think in the end, it presents a better picture and future for America than four more years of the same.

>Kerry, on the other hand, will probably respond too much--he'll blow back and forth as first Republicans and then Democrats attack him.

If you think he will flap in the breeze from simple domestic political attacks, how do you think he would respond to terrorist and military atttacks?

Like Clinton did in Somalia, Kerry will pull back from any military engagement at the first sign of trouble. Which sends the clear message to our enemies: "If you attack us, we will run away, so go ahead and attack us."

The Blackhawk Down event became the handbook of the Taliban and the Iraqi holdouts. We still have the reputation of running away, with no stomach for casualties. We need to reverse that image.

You can change tactics, you can change details, but you can't change your core values, or abandon your mission, at the first sign of trouble, and expect to survive.

That's why it's called a "commitment." We don't need a wishy-washy Charley Brown as commander in chief.

>As I've said any number of times on this blog, this simply is not true. When Clinton left office, NK's nuclear material was sealed and monitored. Now, it's almost certainly in nuclear weapons.

Well, that is just a lie.

We found out that they had TWO programs in place, not just the one we knew about and had monitored. They had already completed TWO nuclear bombs before Bush even took the oath! But you still blame him.

And worse, you want to make another deal with Kim Jung Il.

Talk about not learning from your mistakes!

2 thoughts:

1. You missed one of the most important reasons for the invasion of Iraq. It is revealed by simply looking at a map - Iraq is the only country that borders our 3 biggest problems in the ME (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia). 100,000+ US troops in Iraq is a better diplomatic tool against these states than any words Kerry can muster.

2. Terrorism on a large scale requires two things that are vulnerable to attack: state sponsorship and money. Choke off those two, and the problem is managable. Chasing terrorists around the world is pointless and futile - people are replacable. With all due respect, it doesn't matter what happens to OBL - if you cut off his money and his state support, he will be ineffective and we can catch him at our leisure.

This thread should have ended after lgl's comment.

He brought up the Nazis, and according to Godwin's law, his side automatically loses.

;-)

enough to slightly lower my probability of voting for Kerry to 70%. So it's now up to Kerry's supporters to make their case

Why? Sounds like Bush supporters still have to work on getting that value below 50 %. Or will you only vote for Kerry, if Kerry supporters can persuade you to raise the value to 100 %? And otherwise it's Bush by default?

But since you asked - and given all the pros and cons you already went through - I think it's down to actuals versus hypotheticals. All your concerns about Bush are actual concerns based on Bush's actual mistakes in his handling of a post-9/11 presidency. All your concerns about Kerry are hypothetical concerns about how Kerry will handle his own post-9/11 presidency, but they are based on his (allegedly not so good) pre-9/11 voting record in the Senate.

Remember, in 2000 Bush ran on a Republican platform that had isolationist elements. And what exactly did Bush do in the early 90s and the early 80s, when you say that Kerry voted the wrong way on the Cold War and the first Gulf War? When you look at past records, don't you actually have to look at both?

For me personally a major aspect is that Bush refuses to do much about homeland security. He said in the debates that it costs too much and he repeated again and again that we are already spending the equivalent of about 1/4 of the latest corporate giveaway on homeland security. Of course, he didn't draw that comparison, but just hoped that the number of 40 billion dollars would suitable impress his audience as "big enough".

Mark Buehner in the previous thread and Bithead here are reciting the talking point that Kerry is playing defense because he wants to improve homeland security. Bush and his administration have repeatedly made the point that the terrorists "only have to succeed once" in order to wreak havoc again. (It seems lost on them that the terrorists might actually succeed many, many times if we continue to leave so many areas badly protected and that even imperfect defenses might prevent MOST of those otherwise successful MULTIPLE attacks. Given that 9/11 was really four attacks, that does seem quite likely, doesn't it?)

I'm very worried by the lack of a public discussion about what SHOULD happen, if another attack occurs. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to conclude that many members of the current Bush administration would welcome the opportunity to further curtail civil liberties. If we really all assume that it's just a matter of when, not whether another attack occurs, then is it far-fetched to think that some people might actually want to see it happen sooner rather than later so that they can finally implement their favorite policies?

So what will they do, and why aren't they telling? Will they expel all Muslims? Close the borders? End immigration? I don't think free trade will survive long under those circumstances either. Will we invade a few more countries, chosen not for their connection to the terrorists, but for other, inexplicable reasons? If there is a nuclear attack on America, will we strike back, probably indiscrimately, with our own nuclear weapons?

Frankly, I don't think humanity can afford the danger of George Bush still being in office if and when another terrorist attack occurs in America.

Kerry vs. Bush:

If you like Scalia and Thomas then vote for Bush. If you like SDOC, go with Kerry. Scalia said that Thomas doesn't believe that case law should be considered as settled when making decisions.

Overseas:

Iran and Syria. What are the chances that Bush will invade one of those two states in the next 4 years? Well, if we look at what he's said about pre-emptive strike and then compare with those two states... really good. Plus, there were sources in the admin who were willing to go on record as stating that it was in the works.

Kerry--won't. i'm not sure what sort of force-posture you'd like, but i'm faily certain that occupying two mid-east states at the same time is a bad, really bad, plan.

and the argument that 'we're drawing the terrorists to us so we fight them there rather than here' is, well, somehow hollow. Let's assume for a second that OBL and Co. have at least normal intelligence.

Our government officials are on TV and in print announcing that 'we're fighting there so we don't have to fight here.'

So, if I'm a reasonably bright terrorist I will, upon hearing this... run right to Iraq and fight Americans? These are folks with the brains and discipline to carry-out multi-year planning. Thus, not at all a reasonable theory on terrorist fighting.

I don't have a great plan, but I'm certain that 'invading mid-east countries' and then leaving only a shell-force that can't consistently project force outside of the capital (Afganistan or Iraq, whatever) is not the way to 'root out terrorists where they're from.'

Maybe Kerry doesn't have a great plan for that, but I'm with Matt Newman, Bush's probability of coming up with a good plan is approx. zero. Kerry's might only be .1 or so, but I'm pretty close to taking that.

>You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to conclude that many members of the current Bush administration would welcome the opportunity to further curtail civil liberties.

You don't have to be, but you are.

So, are you going to be yet another kook who implies your rights have been destroyed by the Patriot Act, and then can't detail one example of how your rights have been impacted?

Or does it fall again to the library books?

Why do you think it was okay to apply these very same laws to Mafia dons, but god forbit we should trample on the rights of Mohammed Atta Jr.

Count me among a decided minority, but I happen to think a Kerry administration will fight international terrorism much more effectively than the Bush administration has: Kerry, more fundamentally than Bush, comprehends the "nature" of this struggle.

Bush has, of course, pilloried Kerry for being stuck in a pre-9/11 "mindset." But in fact, it is Bush who is stuck there--determined to re-fight the Cold War. Thus his focus on rogue states and their proxies, and his relative complacency once these rogue regimes have been toppled. It is Kerry who has argued for GREATER military force when it comes to destroying al-Qaeda, and it is Kerry who has emphasized a need to "broaden" the focus beyond terror-supporting states to terrorists’ networks spread around the globe.

Terrorists do not need rogue states to thrive. In fact, you might say that the most dangerous networks have sprouted from US allies in the Muslim world. Not a single top al-Qaeda leader (according to FBI, State Dept., and other US sources) is a citizen of a "state sponsor" of terrorism. Al-Qaeda's leadership principally comes from 10 or so nations THAT ARE US ALLIES in the Middle East and Asia. It needs a complicit, supportive population, and a single set of goals, namely, the eviction of non-Muslims from the Middle East, and the destabilization of Western-allied Muslim states. If Bush has an approach to dealing with this problem--that the source of the problem comes from supposedly "staunch" allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, and Yemen, I haven't seen it.

More than that, terror needs a globalized world: a world free of restrictions on international finance, a world in which customs regulations are few, and in which labor migration is encouraged. So money winds its way to terror networks and groups that can send materials and supplies around the globe, and can send members to countries to work and form terror cells unimpeded. We cannot give up globalization; nor should we. But where is the concerted effort to police terrorist transactions? Yes, yes, I hear plenty from the Bush administration on how much cooperation they are getting in cracking down on terrorist finance. But if you were to choose between a President who thinks if you topple a few regimes things will take care of themselves, and a President who understands that terrorists organizations can “lurk in the shadows” for decades, and need to be destroyed by a combination of military force and international effort, whom would you pick?

As someone trained to think in terms of indivdual (meaning single persons, not groups) actors, I find Bush's rhetoric refering to vague groups as "terrorists" and "axis-of-evil" a bit concerning. At least Kerry breaks down the relevent actors into smaller groups. (Although personally, I would break them down even further. I think of Al Quada as at least three separate parts; the rank-and-file recruits, the leadership, and the fiancial backers. I'd want to break it down further if I could, but I (and probally the US) don't know enough about them to do so) For example, Saddam Hussein and Al Quada aren't the same thing - but sometimes judging by Bush's rhetoric I wonder if Bush doesn't conflate the two. Bush himself describes himself as someone who relies on gut instinct sometimes, and even if he understands, logically, the two are distinct (although related) threats, I worry that subconsciously he melds the two together, distorting his instincts.

Sometimes I wonder if Bush fully understood that Iraq is made up of many people, with conflicting goals and ambitions. That realization of course does not imply that going to war in Iraq was wrong, but being aware of it might have given him more pause and a greater understanding of the kind of chaos that would be unleashed after an invasion. I'm not one to blame Bush for *all* the mistakes done in Iraq after the invasion; war always has unintended consequences. But if Bush were more naturally inclined to see multiple relevent actors instead of amphorous "enemies" perhaps some of the problems would have been handled better. The administration publicly predicted a relatively easy aftermath. Someone who thinks in terms of specific individual actors, or at least groups smaller than a state, or worse "terorists," would be much less likely to see Iraq as easy.

Of course it's possible that Bush deep down has a more sophisticated view of the world, but simply chooses to use rhethoric that is simplistic and overly optimistic. But then by doing that he is misrepresenting himself, making it harder for us in a democracy to make informed choices. Furthermore, if one of the primary goals of the war was to convince other actors of America's resolve, why did the administration publicly downplay the difficulty of establishing peace in Iraq prior to the war? We basically said "We're willing to use force against all who oppose us *when it is easy*. Since Saddam opposes us, and it'll be easy, we'll make war." When it turns out that winning the peace is hard, those we are trying to intimidate have to wonder whether we intend to use force in the future. If the administration had been more candid about how hard establishing peace could be, the intimidation value of the Iraq war would have been greater.

My guess is then the administration sincerely thought the war was going to be easy. In which case, they are simply out of touch with reality (Due to conflating individuals together into amphorous groups, or groupthink induced by strong loyalty norms inside the administration, or an absolutist religious worldview, or whatever.)

Fielding a statement about how Democrats feel about Kerry. I was disappointed when he picked up the nomination too. But that was largely due to the opinion that he wasn't particularly electable (out of the group). Obviously anybody the Dems nominated would have been very competitive this year, but Kerry (who I really like on policy) isn't going to pick up the votes of Americans who vote on sound bites and physical appearance (almost a viable third party). So, thought of Kerry the president gets me enthusiastic and happy. Thought of Kerry the candidate is kind of a downer.

On foreign policy. What should the foreign policy priorities of the next four years be? I'd say
1. Dealing with nuclear proliferation. Who would you rather have here?
2. Rebuilding Iraq. Who would you rather have here?
3. Nailing Osama/et al. Of the two, who could do this?
4. Begging for money (or troops, though troops seem to be unlikely) from countries to support reconstruction efforts.

And what special scenarios might a president have to deal with?
1. We get nuked. Who would you want president at that time? (obviously Giuliani. But I still feel betrayed by the way Bush disappeared on 9/11.)
2. We need to invade somewhere else. (I'd think we need more troops to be able to deal with this possibility. Choose your candidate.)
3. Humanitarian crisis/genocide.
4. War between two countries, neither of which being us (how strange would that be!).

What can you say about an incumbent whose supporters say "He'll be different in his next term!"

Dan, Dan, Dan. Stop the rationalizing and overthinking. After the president sets a direction it's all subordinates and hangers on. Always. They are good bad and indifferent. Always.

The very, very simple question is, who do you want setting the direction? This is just the old question, who would you rather have in the foxhole with you? Just answer that question. Then you will have all you need.

Like Clinton did in Somalia, Kerry will pull back from any military engagement at the first sign of trouble. Which sends the clear message to our enemies: "If you attack us, we will run away, so go ahead and attack us."

Wrong, Korla.

Richard Clarke on Clinton's post-"Black Hawk Down" NSC meeting:... Clinton was irate. Somalia was not his idea of how to spend his first year in office. He had inherited it and the military had let him down. He had followed the Pentagon's advice, not Howe's, in June and they had been wrong.... Clinton sat silently, red-faced, in the Cabinet Room listening to Warren Christopher, Les Aspin, and Colin Powell. I realized he was letting them have their time, but he had already decided something. He was done listening to them on Somalia.

When they had talked themselves out, Clinton stopped doodling and looked up. "Okay, here's what we're gonna do. We are not running away with our tail between our legs. I've already heard from Congress and that's what they all want to do, get out tomorrow. We're staying. We are also not gonna flatten Mogadishu to prove we are the big bad-ass superpower. Everybody in the world knows we could do that. We don't have to prove that to anybody.

"We are going to send in more troops, with tanks and aircraft and anything else they need. We are going to show force. And we are going to keep delivering the food. If anybody fucks with us, we will respond, massively. And we are going to get the U.N. to finally show up and take over. Tell Boutros he has six months to do that, not one day more. Then ... then we will leave."

* * * Six months later, the United States finally handed over the operation to the United Nations peacekeeping force.

* * * the United States had never intended to stay in Somalia. It had gone there for a limited time until the creaky U.N. peacekeeping bureaucracy could field a force. By its own limited definition of an objective, the U.S. had done what it set out to do.

Against All Enemies, pp. 88-89.

You chide Kerry for indecision.
You also credit an April report that months of paralysis within the administration prevented taking an opportunity to strike a deal with Iran that might have halted their nuclear program.
Do you really think Kerry would have failed to grab a chance like the one the report describes? For one thing, he would have no advisers who wouldn't appreciate the importance of nuclear weapons.
(Am I misreading the report? Is it really true there was a decent chance of striking a deal that would stop the nukes and we didn't seize on it?)

>Thus his focus on rogue states and their proxies, and his relative complacency once these rogue regimes have been toppled. It is Kerry who has argued for GREATER military force when it comes to destroying al-Qaeda...

And where would Kerry direct this great military response if not states that harbor and support terrorists?

Should we bomb the Atlantic ocean?

Bush spelled it out. The states that are not helping us by rejecting terrorism are equally as guilty as the terrorists themselves. That means Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.

Other countries realized they were on the wrong side of the gun and decided to either side with us, as did Pakistan, or at least surrender their WMD programs, like Libya.

So where is Kerry going to target Osama Bin Laden, since apparently in his book that is the sum total of the terrorist threat.

Where will he send the marines? The North Pole?

Specifics please?

Thorley:

It's true that "divided government" is too simplistic a prescription, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. It's simply that the divide we need (to hold down spending) is GOP Congress, Dem President, rather than the reverse. Two points:

1) Politicians get popularity by Doing Stuff. And the "Stuff" they can do primarily involves spending (other people's money). Democrats tend to support that for ideological reasons (i.e., they think the government should be doing these things); Republicans tend to do so for pragmatic reasons (i.e., popularity).

2) The president gets significant credit for whatever gets done.

So if you have a Democratic Congress, then they want to, and do, pass programs, and a Republican president doesn't want to look uncaring by stopping it. Indeed, he can boost his popularity by claiming credit for it. So you get spending.

On the other hand, a Republican Congress wants to kill programs for ideological reasons, _and_ wants to deny a Democratic president the ability to claim successes, so it has an incentive to block new spending.

Korla says that Pakistan decided to side with us.

While winking at A.Q. Khan's becoming a peddler of nuke tech?

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Note to Dan: If you haven't read James Fallows's articles "Blind into Baghdad" and "Bush's Lost Year," you really should before even thinking of voting Bush. If you have, you might mention them and whether or not they impressed you (and why).

The third argument rests on perception -- does the Arab world now recognize that the U.S. is not a paper tiger? And this is where I firmly disagree with Greg. The mere existence of an insurgency able to explode bombs in the Green Zone eighteen months after the end of "major hostilities" makes the United States look weak. The escalating number of U.S. casualties makes the United States look vulnerable. The failure to properly police Iraq's borders makes the United States look incompetent. And as for what Abu Ghraib makes the United States look.... let's not go there.

Although the rest of Dan's post is quite good, I thought that this paragraph was just plain wrong.

I'd like for Dan to answer me one question: which makes the US look weaker, (a) suicide bombs exploding inside the Green Zone while our troops help Allawi plan free Iraqi elections, or (b) Saddam Hussein, inside the Green Zone, freely thumbing his nose at our 200,000 troops sitting in the desert in Saudi Arabia, three years after 9/11? Because option (b) is the option Kerry prefers ("wrong war, wrong time, etc.").

##################

Hey Professor...You've become that cartoon character of
John Kerry...Ponder, Ponder, Ponder. Kinda like Winni-The-Pooh
who sits on a log and taps his paw against his head and says:
"Think, Think, Think".

The only part of your article I want to comment on is the Machiavelli
paragraph. Here it is in full:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
....Machiavelli's oft-cited line about the
adequacy of the perception of power prompts a
question. Is the appearance of confidence as
important as its possession? Can confidence --
true confidence -- be willed? Or must it be
earned?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machiavelli didn't quite get the 'perception of power' concept. (But he was-a-close.)
'Perception of power' is just a TOOL to use on the way to obtaining
your goals. The 'appearance of confidence' is also just a TOOL.
A leader who knows the strengths and weakness of the tools has an
excellent chance of winning his/hers goals. A great leader is someone
who knows how the two intertwine, and when to use and not use them.
A great leader also understands the meaning of the words 'perception' and
'appearance' as it relates to his own true power. A leader who fails to understand
the relationship is a doomed leader. All his efforts will be for nought. Sooner
or later reality crashes in on him.

Meanwhile, Back in the 100 acre woods:

"You know", Pooh said as he sat on a log tapping his paw against his head.
"I think the Professor already knows who is going to vote for."

I think the point is that there are no more "rogue" regimes that can, realistically, be toppled by US force anytime soon. If the implication is that Bush is basically saying: "Iran: you're next; Pakistan and Saudi Arabia: we're onto you," there is no one in any of those countries that believes that. So the question is not, "who would Kerry bomb," but "now that we've exhausted military options, what next?" And I see plenty of "nexts" for Kerry, but none for Bush.

And Al Qaeda (which, though not the sum total of the threat is still the major part of the threat) is a presence in 60 nations. So this "war" is not being fought in Iran, Syria, North Korea (you forgot Cuba--nope, not there either). It's being fought in Hamburg, Madrid, Marseilles, Jakarta, Rabat, Riyadh, etc., etc., etc.

Kerry and others did urge Bush to use force more aggressively to destroy al Qaeda remnants in the final days of the Afghan war. But Bush basically saw his job as done once the Taliban fell. And therein lies the difference.

"The critique of Kerry's own record of decision-making gives me the greatest pause."

Good question.

Will Kerry be decisive enough and aggressive enough to make tough decisions--to pull the trigger, to get people killed? If the CIA have a chance to assassinate bin Laden or other al-Qaeda operatives, for example, will he authorize them to do so? Or will Kerry be paralyzed by indecision?

I guess this is why Kerry's emphasized his Vietnam service. In particular, the Silver Star incident--there's a firefight going on, Kerry's boat is fired on by a rocket launcher, he orders his crew to beach the boat, he kills the guy with the rocket launcher--is pretty strong evidence that (a) he's decisive in a crisis and (b) he's willing to kill people.

I think Pooh may be on to something, at the very least, but the above exchange is terrific. I've concluded that Kerry isn't a leader based on his record in the senate. He is not much of a diplomat either, based on never having made amends to those who were maligned by his post-war comments, some of which he has stated were "over the top." As to his judgement? The convention told me too much to take comfort. "I'm a hero" isn't the way heroes are known to speak of themselves. So for me, John Kerry has climbed quite high enough on an already wavering ladder - for him to go one step up puts me and everyone else in harm's way.

Somebody up there made a good point -- Kerry voted to give Bush the power to use the miltary at his discretion. IF what Bush said had been true (Saddam had WMDs), we may have needed to use force in Iraq. So Kerry voted Yes.

The moderate foreign affairs consensus, e.g., Walter Russell Mead, *get* the post-911 world. Kerry/Holbrooke values the opinion of the foreign affairs consensus. Therefore, Kerry gets the post-911 world.

David Nieporent wrote:

It's true that "divided government" is too simplistic a prescription, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. It's simply that the divide we need (to hold down spending) is GOP Congress, Dem President, rather than the reverse.

I disagree, a divided government or one that lead to gridlock would be unlikely to enact any sort of entitlement program reform (which is a far more important than discretionary spending) before the Baby Boom generation or worse any reform it enacted would resemble the Social Security reform of the 1980’s in which we increased the payroll tax rather than allowed younger workers to opt out (thereby stopping the digging of the hole we’re in) or implemented any sort of long-term structural reform.

Also there is no reason to assume that the Senate will continue to remain under Republican control and if should be as closely divided as it is, a Democrat President could be able to pick off the four or five liberal Republican Senators to implement some of this programs. Then it becomes a matter of a two against one and prior experience shows that the two are more likely to prevail than the one.

> He is not much of a diplomat either, based on
> never having made amends to those who were
> maligned by his post-war comments, some of
> which he has stated were "over the top."

There is really very little that one can say that will make any difference whatsoever to people who viscerally and irrationally despise you. Those who hate Kerry based on his anti-war activities fall right into this group.

(It seems lost on them that the terrorists might actually succeed many, many times if we continue to leave so many areas badly protected and that even imperfect defenses might prevent MOST of those otherwise successful MULTIPLE attacks. Given that 9/11 was really four attacks, that does seem quite likely, doesn't it?)

Given the lack of attacks after 9/11... the answer is "no". And, why? Because they're all focused on Iraq.

There, or here.... there seems preferable.

If you think Iran is going to just give up its nukes without the mullahs being kicked out, you are dreaming. And the nukes will be denied them, one way or another.

That may mean war. It may mean covert support of an Iranian rebellion. But it will be something that requires backbone, and not UN committee hearings and social teas.

And North Korea will require serious facing down. Not begging and bribes. A real threat of military force.

Syria will have to be removed as well. And Kerry will have none of this.

There may be a lot of tough talk from the so-called Muslim world, but when the Taliban was toppled, against expectations that we would cower and retreat, a serious rift occurred in the terrorist realm. A lot of them were pissed at Al Qaeda for bringing us over there.

Because Bush showed we were willing to defy France, who promised Saddam we would not attack, there will be a lot more second thoughts about attacking us directly.

But that's not good enough. We have to get rid of these tyrants altogether, however long it takes. Just like it was a mistake to think WWII was Europe's problem, it was a mistake to trade the delusion of stability for the tolerance of fascism.

Kerry prefers the delusion of stability. With the occasional nuisance.

Putin recently commented that, while he was not throwing support towards either American Presidential candidates, that if Kerry wins he feels it will most certainly make Islamic Fundamentalists feel validated, raising the probability of more terrorist attacks internationally. In other words a Bush win would deflat a terrorist's ego while a Kerry one would serve to only inflate it. Although this is not an esoteric comment, I think it is something to be considered, as to how the psychology of this whole election will play out in the minds and hearts of those who are trying to extinguish Western Civilization's influence.

Also, I feel more secure knowing how Bush has acted and reacted through the various crisises of the last three and a half years. The fact that our country has been free from other external attacks, is experiencing a resusitation of it's economy, and has released two Islamic countries of their dictatorships, as it tries to stabalize the aftermath of the US's involvement, is "progress" that is tangible and deserves positive notation.

Kerry's rhetoric, however, offers little comfort except to flood rallies and debate forums with a multitude of "Plans." His cry of, "I have a Plan," is far less convincing than Martin Luther King's famous line of, "I have a dream." Because a "plan" seduces one into thinking of something concrete rather than King's more visionary "dream" reference. And there has really been nothing solid about how a proposed Kerry Administration would actually function and implement it's ideas.

Furthermore, ideas and plans all depend on the originator's internal core beliefs, character and values. And this is what bothers me the most about Kerry. You can prop Kerry up front as the leader, but if he has serious voids of depth, or if he is merely a political suit looking to fill out a life long fantasy of being President, without the real credentials to do so, then, "Houston we have a problem." Kerry's controversial Vietnam tour of duty, his painful and, some would call foolhardy, participation in the Winter Soldier hearings, his lackluster Senate career, and his multiple switchbacks of thoughts and attitudes towards current issues in this political campaign only punctuate these concerns

This election, for me, is less about which party wins than which man is better suited to fulfill the next four years of service at a very critical time in our country's history. I am really not sure that either man will be able to do the job needed right now. But, with Bush's tenacious character, and his ability to act on issues decisively, despite all the politically correct and international pressures around a US President these days, this gives me hope that we can survive under his leadership. The given mistakes Bush has already made only gives him extra points of experience regarding what has and has not worked, which Kerry lacks, at the get go. And, just because Bush has not gotten down on his political knees to recount them all to the public, doesn't mean that he has not done the reflection needed to make appropriate corrections in the future. I personally think there is much more to Bush than the media and scrutinizing opposition party gives him credit for. Thusly, I feel that four more years of Bush will not necessarily mean four more years of the same. Instead, it might mean 4 more years of a revitalized, revised policy under a tested President.

One other point.

I'm surprised Dan did not respond to Greg Djerejian's "Substance Over Form, Please!" point, since it was specifically intended to rebut Dan's argument about Bush policy-making process.

I think I understand why Dan focuses so intently on process. After all, process is a lot of what Political Scientists study. So I assume that Dan thinks it quite important. But he has never quite explained WHY he thinks process is so important. And, frankly, my view approximates Greg's: process is important, but, unless it is fatally flawed, process is less important than having a clear vision of where you want the process to take us.

Korla is just tickling the heck out of me today, can't say why ... maybe the Electoral College math is depressing me too much?

If you think Iran is going to just give up its nukes without the mullahs being kicked out, you are dreaming. And the nukes will be denied them, one way or another.

That may mean war. It may mean covert support of an Iranian rebellion. But it will be something that requires backbone, and not UN committee hearings and social teas.

And North Korea will require serious facing down. Not begging and bribes. A real threat of military force.

Syria will have to be removed as well. And Kerry will have none of this.

(What does it say, btw, that someone talks about "removing" Syria? Is Korla a wargamer, an aficianado of 007 movies, or what? How do we "remove" Syria? The way we've removed Iraq?)

We had an army that could've cowed Iraq, Iran, NK, and Syria ... provided it wasn't launched. And we launched it, as someone's observed, at the one member of the Axis of Evil (has a metal band taken that name yet?) not to have a working nuke program.

So on Korla's own reckoning, Bush has made America less safe. Kerry has damn little to choose from on his options, because Bush has sent our army to embrace the tar baby. So the utter gall of those who say "Kerry won't use force, so vote for Bush" is ASTONISHING. Kerry and what army? What choice other than "diplomacy and law enforcement" has Bush's folly left Kerry?

Barring the draft, of course.

Hi,
I find it surprising that removing Saddam Hussein is perceived as a foreign policy victory. Saddam Hussein is not the only dictator in the world and neither is he the only brutal one. The middle east is full of fascist regimes, which are every bit as bad as Mr Hussein's was in Iraq. In addition to this, some of them have done real damage directly to the United States by sponsoring and continuing to sponsor terrorist and fundamentalist organizations.

Regarding the issue of WMD proliferation, Mr Hussein was successfully boxed in prior to his removal. Additionally, there are other regimes in the region who are far more serious threats in this regard. After all, as was made public through the A.Q Khan affair, the Saudis were the major backers for the Pakistani nuclear program, and I would think that they did do this for reasons other than charity. On these grounds, invading Iraq looks more like a mistake than anything else.
I also do not see how one believes that things are better than 18 months ago, given that in the immediate aftermath of Mr Hussein's removal, there was little insurgency activity in comparison to now. Also, while the U.S military may have been successful in keeping its casualties low, this does not mean that local Iraqi citizens are not being killed on a daily basis. The numbers of Iraqi victims seems to be considerably larger than American casualties. Even if the military reduced
its casualties, if local Iraqi support is eroded
in this manner, there is little chance of peace
returning to Iraq.

As for the Afghan operations, I admit that they have been successful, but there is no reason to believe that a democratic administration would have done any differently in the aftermath of 9/11 /2001 .

It is also unreasonable to believe that a Kerry Administration would do worse than Bush's administration on the appointment of Supreme court
justices given the Bush administration's track
record on judicial appointments (Jay Bybee of the Torture memo fame anyone ?).

The present adminstration has repeatedly lied and mislead the public on many matters. Also, from
watching the presidential and vice presidential debates, they seem to have no problems lying when
faced with inconvenient questions. And equally worrisome is the complete assurance and certainity
that they can make no major mistakes. It is really
dangerous for someone so lacking in hindsight and judgement to hold such enormous power.

goethean -- That's your take on it. Unfortunately, it was also Kerry's. Some diplomat if he can't tackle the tough stuff!

RE: "If you think Iran is going to just give up its nukes without the mullahs being kicked out, you are dreaming. And the nukes will be denied them, one way or another... That may mean war. It may mean covert support of an Iranian rebellion. But it will be something that requires backbone, and not UN committee hearings and social teas."

Where are you getting your information on Iran? Support for nukes in Iran goes far beyond the 'mullahs' and includes nationalist stirrings that are understandably looking for ways to project power in an unstable part of the world. Point is, de-nuking them will not be a simple matter of surgical strikes or decapitation.

RE: "And North Korea will require serious facing down. Not begging and bribes. A real threat of military force."

I'd like to see the Bush Administration work out the scenarios where they can threaten military force while allaying the individual and shared concerns of China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. On second thought, I wouldn't want to see any of those scenarios come about and that's why I plan a reluctant but necessary vote for Kerry.

Its like the people at a party who say they are undecided so they get all the attention. First Dan says he needs Bush-supporters to convince him to vote for Bush and he wants Kerry-supporters to do the opposite. Flash- make up your own mind dude. If you haven't yet been able to choose between the two despite the preponderance of evidence and arguments and records then I think my illegal-alien Mexican janitor has a greater right to vote than you do. At least he knows he prefers Bush because he'll allow guest workers from Mexico. Stop expecting everyone to fawn over you because your precious p-value hangs in the balance. Sheesh!

Dan,

I can follow your domestic politics argument.
Saying that a "divided" government like a Democratic President and a Republican Congress is probably more healthy for the long-term fiscal health of the USA than a "one party government" like you have now.

I am amazed to see that so called conservatives are spending like there´s no tomorrow and like "deficits don´t matter".

Concerning foreign policy though...
I´m simply puzzled by your post?
You´re saying that you´re not convinced that
"the John Kerry of 2004 has learned a little bit from his past mistakes.

Uhh, if American media reports (those available on the Internet) are right, President Bush can´t name any single mistake in the last four years?

I don´t know about you BUT I personally can think of a few mistakes I made in the last months?
I am frightened of a person who can´t think of a single mistake in the last four years?
I´d be more comfortable with a guy who made some mistakes and acknowledged them than with a guy who insists that he is unfailable.

(Sorry, I´m a Protestant. :)
So I don´t believe that the Pope is unfailable.
And I don´t believe even less that President Bush is unvailable. :) )

Now - following you - Iraq.

1) The WMD issue which - I notice - you don´t follow.

2)The neocon issue
If Iraq could be transformed into something approximating a democracy, it would put pressure on all the other regimes in the region to quit diverting domestic attention towards the Israeli/Palestinian issue and promote genuine reform.

I´m sympathetic to that issue myself!
(In fact I was a member of the minority in Germany myself supporting the war initially.)
But if they were really intent on reaching that goal then why, oh why didn´t they PLAN for it?

I sincerely believe there was a window of opportunity in 2003 in Iraq.
Your American $18 billion pledge and the "frozen"
x billion Iraqi money from the UN "food for oil" program.
(Just forget the pledged money from other countries right now.)

Iraq wasn´t/isn´t a third world country.
They do have educated people.
Why, oh why, weren´t - say - $5 billion immediately injected into the IRAQI economy?
Let them rebuild their own country.

Instead we saw no-bid contracts to Bechtel and
Halliburton. With Indian, Nepalese, Turkish etc. employees...

OH, and forget Djerejian. :)
Paper tiger?
You Americans targeted Iraq, the weakest link in the "Axis of Evil". The one member we now know without any access to WMDs.

I just fail to see how that proves that you´re not a paper tiger?
I notice that the Bush administration is a lot more careful about North Korea.

In fact you´re pulling American troops out of South Korea because you need them in Iraq, NOT because you´ve got any concessions by North Korea.
Do you really think North Korea is afraid of you right now?

Some commenters have suggested that Bush secretly recognizes that mistakes have been made, and there will be changes after the election.

Explain to me something.
The vote in 2000 was extremely narrow.
A few hundred votes and the Supreme Court decided the election.

Please explain to me why there would be "real" changes in the Bush administration assuming it will get reelected?
That´s so sweet!

I mean if they get reelected it must mean a majority of Americans support their policies?
At least to Bush and Cheney.
Be it domestic or foreign policies?
Right?
Why then should they change anything?

They win the election (in 2004) so YOU American voters obviously support their politics of the last four years.
If you reelect them, why should they change
anything?

Especially since they don´t have to think about reelection in 2008?

I´m really curious to know why a Bush/Cheney team should change their policies in their second term?

"We have to get rid of these tyrants altogether, however long it takes."

I would argue that the US ought first to (1) define its vital interests, and (2) identify the vital interests of these regimes, no matter how noxious they are. If it's possible to reach a compromise that will protect the vital interests of the US--in particular, by preventing nuclear proliferation, which Kerry and Bush both agree is the greatest threat to US security--then I would argue that the US ought to settle on a compromise instead of going to war.

The US military is already badly overstretched trying to deal with Iraq. I don't see how the US is realistically going to be able to go to war with Iran, or North Korea, or Syria in the near future. If the US had infinite resources, it wouldn't have to negotiate with these regimes. But in the real world, it doesn't have infinite resources.

The purpose of war isn't physical, it's psychological: it isn't to destroy the enemy, it's to force the enemy to do something he doesn't want to do. (See Liddell Hart's Strategy.) If you can do this through diplomacy rather than war--through persuasion, compromise, and/or threats--then it's far better to do so than to go to war, which always has unpredictable consequences.

From this perspective, overheated rhetoric about evil regimes is counterproductive. How can you negotiate with someone after calling them evil?