In Search Of Escape - Not Victory

On Iraq, John Kerry is a one-man think tank, producing more ideas more rapidly than any of the experts at Brookings or the American Enterprise Institute.

At various points over the past year, the Senator has called for sending more troops and withdrawing troops within six months. He has denounced the war -- and also said that if he had it to do all over again, knowing everything he knows now, he would still have voted in favour of it.

Yet nothing infuriates Kerry more than press criticism that his message on Iraq is less than perfectly clear. So yesterday he travelled to New York University to give one more answer to the question, "what would you do?" And to give Kerry credit, his speech this time was clear -- alarmingly clear.

In his NYU speech, Kerry reveals that he no longer believes that the United States can win in Iraq. His speech was released as a "plan to win the peace and avoid failure in Iraq." But the text strongly implies that Kerry has come to terms with the probability of failure: "If the President would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years." Kerry's top priority is not to prevail in Iraq; it is to escape from Iraq.

But Kerry's plan for getting from here to there is almost childishly unrealistic.

There will be no troops from other countries.

Trained or untrained, Iraqi troops will continue to need U.S. and coalition support.

It is the insurgency, not Bush administration foot-dragging, that has slowed the pace of reconstruction.

Kerry probably knows all this. But it does not matter. His plan is not a plan. It is a face-saving expedient to justify a hasty and unconditional U.S. withdrawal.

That need for face-saving explains the most mysterious element of Kerry's newest Iraq plan: His emphasis on U.S. support for Iraqi elections.

All this year, Kerry has dismissed Bush's talk of democracy in Iraq as delusional. In April, 2004, Kerry told reporters after a town hall meeting in Harlem, "I have always said from day one that the goal here is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy." Kerry published an entire oped on Iraq in the Washington Post on July 4 of this year that never mentioned elections at all and that ticked off "democracy" as just one item in a long list of U.S. goals.

So why did elections suddenly become so important to Kerry? Listen again to his timetable. Kerry wants to start withdrawing troops within six months of taking office. The Bush administration has scheduled the first Iraqi vote for January. Kerry sees Iraqi elections not as a goal in itself, but as a convenient occasion from which to start counting off the U.S. withdrawal.

Kerry's record on Iraq is one of maladroit opportunism. In 1992, Kerry lost the Democratic vice presidential slot to Al Gore because Gore had voted in favour of the triumphant Gulf War and Kerry had voted against. In 2002, Kerry decided not to repeat his mistake, and this time voted "aye." In his speech on the Senate floor, he explained that he cast his vote not only because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction -- which he said had concerned him for a decade -- but because Saddam's regime was inherently dangerous to the region and the world: "[T]he record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary."

In the Democratic primaries, Kerry came as close as he could to recanting that vote. He called himself an "anti-war" candidate.

After winning the Democratic nomination, Kerry tacked rightward again. On Aug. 9 of this year, Kerry told reporters at Grand Canyon National Park that if he had known in 2002 what he knows today, he would still have cast the same vote.

But now in late September, Kerry has learned something new: He is losing the support of independents. Moderate voters, especially women, are returning to President Bush and his promise of security through strength. Kerry's only hope for victory now is to rile up the Democratic base -- and hope that higher Democratic turnout rates can compensate for superior Republican overall poll numbers. So Kerry has abruptly reversed position on Iraq once more.

"I would," he now says, "have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America."

In other words, his positions on Iraq have amounted to: "yes with an explanation" (October, 2002), "probably not" (December, 2003), "yes, certainly" (August, 2004), "no absolutely" (September, 2004).

Is this man fit for command? You don't have to be a Swift Boat vet to reply: "Absolutely not."