The Speech the President Should Give by John F. Kerry [BARF Alert!]

New York Times ^ | June 28, 2005 | John F. Kerry

[West Coast Conservative]

TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.

The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.

Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

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

[JLO]

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Cavuto's statement yesterday was awesome. Is he taking any grief for it yet today?

[kcvl]

That wouldn't bother Cavuto. lol! I haven't heard of any.

[OESY]

Iraq's No Quagmire, Kerry Admits

The president of the United States is speaking on Iraq this evening at Fort Bragg, N.C., and some dude called John Kerry*, who is not president, showed up on the op-ed page of the New York Times this morning to tell the president what to say. Which just goes to prove, the average voter is smarter than the editors of the New York Times op-ed page.

Let's start with what we like about the Kerry piece, which is the penultimate sentence:

If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face

This is not a graceful piece of writing, but what do you expect from a C student? Still, give Kerry credit for acknowledging that the "quagmire" is a mere "specter"--i.e., a figment of the imagination. Kerry first rose to political prominence as an advocate of U.S. defeat in Vietnam, and we're glad to see that, unlike some of his fellow Democratic senators, he acknowledges Iraq is not Vietnam redux.

Still, anyone who wants America to win in Iraq should be glad Kerry lost last year's election, for although he talks of wanting victory, it sounds as though he's more eager to get out. He says "the president must . . . announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq," and he seems to wants the U.S. to threaten to cut and run more quickly:

[Bush] should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.

In his most ridiculous statement, Kerry lectures the president that "a little humility would go a long way." Just the other day Kerry was whining about Karl Rove's faulting liberals for urging "moderation and restraint" in responding to terrorism. Now we guess it's "moderation, restraint and humility." Though come to think of it, has John Kerry ever displayed any humility in his entire life?

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.


Is Iraq Vietnam? Ask Those Who Know.

That Iraq is "another Vietnam" was a cliché long before the U.S.-led coalition even liberated Baghdad, but lately the drumbeat has become louder and more tired than ever. A Google News search for "Iraq" and "Vietnam" turns up more than 6,500 articles in the past month; this piece from Bloomberg News is typical:

An unreliable ally in a U.S.-led war against guerrillas, declining public support at home and lack of a coherent exit strategy: That was Vietnam 35 years ago, and it increasingly seems to fit Iraq today.

Is Iraq really similar to Vietnam? Only in the sense that some in politics and the media would like to see America lose. That is to say, much of the Vietnam talk we've been hearing is wishful thinking. As Andrew Sullivan wrote in July 2003:

There's an under-current of complete gloom in news reports that seems to me to be more fueled by ideological fervor than sober analysis. Given the magnitude and complexity of the task of rebuilding post-Saddam Iraq, it seems to me we're making slow but decent progress. The lack of a complete social implosion or exploding civil war is itself a huge achievement. And no one said the post-war reconstruction was going to be easy.

So what's behind this drumbeat of apocalypse? I think it's a good rule among boomer journalists that every story they ever edit or write or film about warfare will at some point be squeezed into a Vietnam prism.

But here's one honorable exception. Last week USA Today asked people who would actually know if Iraq is "another Vietnam": Vietnam veterans now serving in Iraq:

If there are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, these graying soldiers and the other Vietnam veterans serving here offer a unique perspective. They say they are more optimistic this time: They see a clearer mission than in Vietnam, a more supportive public back home and an Iraqi population that seems to be growing friendlier toward Americans.

"In Vietnam, I don't think the local population ever understood that we were just there to help them," says Chief Warrant Officer James Miles, 57, of Sioux Falls, S.D., who flew UH-1H Hueys in Vietnam from February 1969 to February 1970. And the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were a tougher, more tenacious enemy, he says. Instead of setting off bombs outside the base, they'd be inside.

"I knew we were going to lose Vietnam the day I walked off the plane," says Miles, who returned home this month after nearly a year in Iraq. Not this time. "There's no doubt in my mind that this was the right thing to do," he says. . . .

1st Sgt. Patrick Olechny, 52, of Marydel, Del., an attack helicopter crew chief and door gunner in Vietnam from March 1971 to February 1972, says the most important difference to him is the attitude of the American public.

"Vietnam was an entirely different war than this one," he says. The basic job of flying helicopters is the same, but the overall mission now is clear when it wasn't then. "We thought in Vietnam we were doing the right thing, and in the end it didn't seem that way," he says.

Now, "the people in the United States respect what the soldiers are doing," says Olechny, who still fills in at the door gunner position when he can get away from his administrative duties.

Browning, recently back from two weeks of R&R in the USA, says he was overwhelmed by the reception he got stateside: More than a hundred people met the airplane to help the soldiers and wish them well. "I can't tell you what, as a Vietnam vet, that means to me," he said.

What mystifies us is why some politicians think defeatism is a winning political strategy. That didn't work last year, and it didn't work even during Vietnam.


But He's a War Hero!

"Ninety percent of people in the market say that people who buy SUVs should not be called patriotic," reports the Internet Broadcasting System. How dare they question John Kerry's patriotism?


-- BEST OF THE WEB TODAY