Woods Workbench

As much as President Bush’s policies in Iraq have been weak and less than effective, Democrats can always be counted on by the White House to protect their right flank by offering an even weaker war policy.

The following Kerry points for disengagement from Iraq were emailed today before President Bush’s speech on Iraq. My comments are inserted:

• The president must announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence or bases in Iraq.

Comment: Such a unilateral act by the Administration would violate Kerry’s stated principals of consultation with our allies in the region, and Congress. Further, it is totally out of context as Iraq borders two state sponsors of terrorism (Iran and Syria), which we will attack one day, either because we get a President committed to vigorously winning this war or in response to our enemies continuing attacks. Such counterproductive proposals by Kerry make me grateful for the fact that more Americans voted against John Kerry than any presidential candidate in history.

• The United States must also insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the constitution and holding elections in December.

Comment: Perhaps Senator Kerry had is fingers in his ears during and after the recent election campaign as this point has been the Bush Administration’s policy since before the invasion. Further, President Bush’s worst judgments in post-war Iraq have been elevating such political concerns over military necessity. Further, the Iraqi political developments have substantially proceeded along the original Administration timeline. Even within his point, Kerry evades the Bush Administration as the genesis of existing deadlines for political developments in Iraq.

• We need to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them.

Comment: Setting an arbitrary deadline without references to changing the facts on the ground and viewing more money as the solution to the problem has morphed from a caricature of Democrats into their siren song. The creation of a professional army to defend Iraq requires not only training, but also the correct recruits. To be useful, the Democrats should authorize the militarily necessary resources without creating political theater for no other purpose than bashing the Administration. Further, how about the Democrats providing some useful ideas about preventing terrorist infiltration of the Iraqi army recruits? Perhaps, John Kerry (USN, Ret. Lt.) could draw on this experience in Vietnam to address this issue. Unfortunately, the Senator views his anti-war experiences as more relevant to the problem at hand.

• The administration needs to work not just at security but at reconstruction -- Iraqis need to see the electricity working and the water flowing.

Comment: This is an area of particularly potent failure by our Administration, but Senator Kerry proscribes more poison has the cure. Instead of retaining public control over resources and infrastructure, the Bush Administration should have privatized them. This would have had many beneficial effects in Iraq: (1) replace Iraqis dependence on and sense of entitlement from the public sector, (2) focus governmental resources both American and Iraqi on security instead of socialist redistribution, (3) foster the economic engine that sustains civil society, and (4) increase private investment in Iraq consistent with rational risk management by securing property rights. Senator Kerry’s approach is the exact opposite, which will fail in Iraq even faster than such schemes do in the relatively more vibrant West.

• The administration needs to get Iraq's neighbors off the sidelines -- they can't afford a failed Iraq on their doorstep, and Bush-style unilateralism needs to bend to getting these countries on board.

Comment: Who? Does Kerry want us to make nice with terrorist sponsors Syria and Iran? Is he suggesting opening Kurdistan up to Turkey so that it will erupt in flames? Kerry should name countries and desired actions instead of mouthing deadly platitudes. Each of Iraq’s neighbors have interests contrary to building a free and stable Iraq; therefore, they do not need to be “consulted” but told when to jump and how high. In the absence of dictating their own policies to them, which would destabilize those governments, the sideline is exactly where they belong. However, in the interest of naming names, Syrian and Iranian actions in support of terrorists that kill our troops should neither be ignored nor addressed only with words of concern as is done by the Bush Administration.

• And the administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress.

Comment: Again, the Administration from the beginning has expressed clear milestones. As time has past and some of these milestones have been achieved, the proposed next steps have followed. Whether these have been executed with flawless precision, there is no doubt that they have not and responsibility for that lies with President Bush’s failure to aggressively kill the enemy. However, Kerry’s concern is that he wants date driven milestones instead of event driven milestones, as if a plan in an of itself can change the facts on the ground. As this would be utter foolishness, I have to interpret his request either as a complaint for complaint sake or a desire for Bush to act foolishly to appease critics only to fail when wishing does not make it so.

In Summary, my political recommendation to Democrats: in war, Kerry has demonstrated that he is the master of self-inflicted wounds so muzzle him before the party weakens itself further.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this