WHY I AM SUPPORTING JOHN KERRY. Risk Management (Sullivan)

The phrase "lesser of two evils" often comes up at this time every four years, but this November, I think, it's too cynical a formula. Neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry can be credibly described as "evils." They have their faults, some of which are glaring. They are both second-tier politicians, thrust into the spotlight at a time when we desperately need those in the first circle of talent and vision. But they are not evil. When the papers carry pictures of 50 Iraqi recruits gunned down in a serried row, as Stalin and Hitler did to their enemies, we need have no doubt where the true evil lies. The question before us, first and foremost, is which candidate is best suited to confront this evil in the next four years. In other words: Who is the lesser of two risks?

Any reelection starts with the incumbent. Bush has had some notable achievements. He was right to cut taxes as the economy headed toward recession; he was right to push for strong federal standards for education; he was right to respond to September 11 by deposing the Taliban; he was right to alert the world to the unknown dangers, in the age of Al Qaeda, of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is still right that democratization is the only ultimate security in an age of Jihadist terror. And when you see women bravely exercising their right to vote in Afghanistan, you are seeing something that would not have happened without our current president. That moral achievement can never be taken away from him.

Equally, his presidency can and should be judged on its most fateful decision: to go to war against Iraq without final U.N. approval on the basis of Saddam's stockpiles of weapons and his violation of countless U.N. resolutions. I still believe that his decision was the right one. The only reason we know that Saddam was indeed bereft of such weaponry is because we removed him; we were going to have to deal with the crumbling mafia-run state in the heart of the Middle East at some point; and the objections of the French and Germans and Russians were a function primarily of mischief and corruption. And what we discovered in Iraq--from mass graves to children's prisons to the devastating effect of sanctions on the lives of ordinary Iraqis--only solidifies the moral case for removing the tyrant. The scandal of the U.N. oil-for-food program seals the argument.

At the same time, the collapse of the casus belli and the incompetent conduct of the war since the liberation point in an opposite direction. If you are going to do what the Bush administration did in putting all your chips on one big gamble; if you are going to send your secretary of state to the United Nations claiming solid "proof" of Saddam's WMDs; if you are going to engage in a major war of liberation without the cover of international consensus--then you'd better well get all your ducks in a row.

Bush--amazingly--didn't. The lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remains one of the biggest blows to America's international credibility in a generation. The failure to anticipate an insurgency against the coalition remains one of the biggest military miscalculations since Vietnam. And the refusal to send more troops both at the beginning and throughout the occupation remains one of the most pig-headed acts of hubris since the McNamara era. I'm amazed that more war advocates aren't incensed by this mishandling of such critical matters. But even a Bush-supporter, like my friend, Christopher Hitchens, has termed it "near-impeachable" incompetence.

I would add one more thing: Abu Ghraib. In one gut-wrenching moment, the moral integrity of the war was delivered an almost fatal blow. To be involved in such a vital struggle and through a mixture of negligence and arrogance to have facilitated such a fantastic propaganda victory for the enemy is just unforgivable. In a matter of months, the Bush administration lost its casus belli and its moral authority. Could it have run a worse war?

Domestically, the record is horrifying for a fiscal conservative. Ronald Reagan raised taxes in his first term when he had to; and he didn't have September 11 to contend with. Ronald Reagan also cut domestic spending. Bush has been unable to muster the conservative courage to do either. He has spent like a drunken liberal Democrat. He has failed to grapple with entitlement reform, as he once promised. He has larded up the tax code with endless breaks for corporate special interests; pork has metastasized; and he has tainted the cause of tax relief by concentrating too much of it on the wealthy. He has made the future boomer fiscal crunch far more acute by adding a hugely expensive new Medicare prescription drug entitlement.

He ran for election as a social moderate. But every single question in domestic social policy has been resolved to favor the hard-core religious right. His proposal to amend the constitution to deny an entire minority equal rights under the law is one of the most extreme, unnecessary, and divisive measures ever proposed in this country. And his response to all criticism--to duck the hardest questions, to reflexively redirect attention to the flaws of his opponents, and to stay within the confines of his own self-reinforcing coterie--has made him singularly unable to adjust, to learn from mistakes, to adapt to a fast-changing world. In peacetime, that's regrettable. In wartime, it's dangerous.

I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government's job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign's constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man's record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point--about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good.

So we have two risks. We have the risk of continuing with a presidency of palpable incompetence and rigidity. And we have the risk of embarking on a new administration with a man whose record as a legislator inspires little confidence in his capacity to rise to the challenges ahead. Which is the greater one?

The answer to that lies in an assessment of the future. We cannot know it; we can merely guess. My best judgment of what we will face is the following: a long and difficult insurgency on Iraq; an Iran on the brink of a nuclear capacity; a North Korea able to distract the United States at a moment's notice from the crisis in the Middle East; and an immensely complicated and difficult task of nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq. At home, we face a fiscal crisis of growing proportions--one that, if left alone, will destroy our future capacity to wage the war for our own survival.

Which candidate is best suited for this unappetizing ordeal? In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration has shown itself impatient with and untalented at nation-building. Moreover, the toll of the war has left the United States with minimal international support, one important ingredient for the successful rebuilding of nations. If Bush is reelected, even Britain will likely shift toward withdrawal in Iraq, compounding American isolation there and making it even harder for a new Iraqi government to gain legitimacy. In the essential tasks of building support for greater international help in Iraq--financially, militarily, diplomatically--Kerry is the better choice. No, other countries cannot bail us out or even contribute much in the way of an effective military presence. But within Iraq, the impact of a more international stamp on the occupation and on the elections could help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis. That battle--as much as the one on the battlefield itself--is crucial for success. I fear Bush is too polarizing, too controversial, too loathed a figure even within his own country, to pull this off.

The president says that he alone can act militarily when the danger is there; and Kerry is too weak for our current crisis. I disagree. The chance of a third forced regime change somewhere in the world in the next four years is extremely low. We don't even have the troops. Bush's comparative advantage--the ability to pull the trigger when others might balk--will be largely irrelevant. That doesn't mean it hasn't come in handy. Without Bush, Saddam would still be in power. But just because the president was suited to fight the war for the last four years doesn't mean he is suited to succeed at the more complicated and nuanced tasks of the next four. In fact, some of the very virtues that made him suited to our past needs now make him all the more unsuited to our future ones. I am still glad he was president when we were attacked. But that doesn't mean he's the right leader for the years ahead. And one of the great benefits of being a democracy at war is that we can change leaders and tactics to advance the same goals. Dictatorships are stuck with the same guy--with all his weaknesses and all the hubris that comes from running successful wars, hubris that almost always leads to fatal errors, hubris that isn't restricted to tyrants.

Does Kerry believe in this war? Skeptics say he doesn't. They don't believe he has understood the significance of September 11. They rightly point to the antiwar and anti-Western attitudes of some in his base--the Michael Moores and Noam Chomskys who will celebrate a Kerry victory. I understand their worries. But they should listen to what Kerry has said. The convention was a remarkable event in that it pivoted the Democratic Party toward an uncomplicated embrace of the war on terror. Kerry has said again and again that he will not hesitate to defend this country and go on the offensive against Al Qaeda. I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. What is there to gain from failure in this task? He knows that if he lets his guard down and if terrorists strike or succeed anywhere, he runs the risk of discrediting the Democrats as a party of national security for a generation. He has said quite clearly that he will not "cut and run" in Iraq. And the truth is: He cannot. There is no alternative to seeing the war through in Iraq. And Kerry's new mandate and fresh administration will increase the options available to us for winning. He has every incentive to be tough enough but far more leeway to be flexible than the incumbent.

Besides, the Democratic Party needs to be forced to take responsibility for the security of the country that is as much theirs as anyone's. The greatest weakness of the war effort so far has been the way it has become a partisan affair. This is the fault of both sides: the Rove-like opportunists on the right and the Moore-like haters on the left. But in wartime, a president bears the greater responsibility for keeping the country united. And this president has fundamentally failed in this respect. I want this war to be as bipartisan as the cold war, to bring both parties to the supreme task in front of us, to offer differing tactics and arguments and personnel in pursuit of the same cause. This is not, should not be, and one day cannot be, Bush's war. And the more it is, the more America loses, and our enemies gain.

Does Kerry believe in the power of freedom enough to bring Iraq into a democratic future? I don't know. It's my major concern with him. At the same time, it's delusional to believe that democracy can take root overnight in Iraq; and a little more humility in the face of enormous cultural difference does not strike me as unwarranted at this juncture. Besides, Kerry has endorsed democracy as a goal in Iraq and Afghanistan; he has a better grasp of the dangers of nuclear proliferation than Bush; he is tougher on the Saudis; his very election would transform the international atmosphere. What Bush isn't good at is magnanimity. But a little magnanimity and even humility in global affairs right now wouldn't do the United States a huge amount of harm.

Domestically, Kerry is clearly Bush's fiscal superior. At least he acknowledges the existence of a fiscal problem, which this president cannot. In terms of the Supreme Court, I have far more confidence in Kerry's picks than Bush's. In 2000, Bush promised moderate, able judges; for the last four years, he has often selected rigid, ideological mediocrities. Obviously, Kerry's stand against a constitutional amendment to target gay citizens is also a critical factor for me, as a gay man. But I hope it is also a factor for straight men and women, people who may even differ on the issue of marriage, but see the appalling damage a constitutional amendment would do to the social fabric, and the Constitution itself. Kerry will also almost certainly face a Republican House, curtailing his worst liberal tendencies, especially in fiscal matters. Perhaps it will take a Democratic president to ratchet the Republican Party back to its fiscally responsible legacy. I'll take what I can get.

And when you think of what is happening in the two major parties, the case for a Kerry presidency strengthens. If Bush wins, the religious right, already dominant in Republican circles, will move the GOP even further toward becoming a sectarian, religious grouping. If Kerry loses, the antiwar left will move the party back into the purist, hate-filled wilderness, ceding untrammeled power to a resurgent, religious Republicanism--a development that will prove as polarizing abroad as it is divisive at home. But if Bush loses, the fight to recapture Republicanism from Big Government moralism will be given new energy; and if Kerry wins, the center of the Democratic party will gain new life. That, at least, is the hope. We cannot know for sure.

But, in every election, we decide on unknowables. When I read my endorsement of George W. Bush of four years ago, I see almost no inkling of what was about to happen and the kind of president Bush turned out to be. But we do the best we can in elections, with limited information and fallible judgment. I should reiterate: I do not hate this president. I admire him in many ways--his tenacity, his vision of democracy, his humor, his faith. I have supported him more than strongly in the last four years--and, perhaps, when the dangers seemed so grave, I went overboard and willfully overlooked his faults because he was the president and the country was in danger. I was also guilty of minimizing the dangers of invading Iraq and placed too much faith, perhaps, in the powers of the American military machine and competence of the Bush administration. Writers bear some responsibility too for making mistakes; and I take mine. But they bear a greater responsibility if they do not acknowledge them and learn. And it is simply foolish to ignore what we have found out this past year about Bush's obvious limits, his glaring failures, his fundamental weakness as a leader. I fear he is out of his depth and exhausted. I simply do not have confidence in him to navigate the waters ahead skillfully enough to avoid or survive the darkening clouds on the horizon.

Kerry? I cannot know for sure. But in a democracy, you sometimes have to have faith that a new leader will be able to absorb the achievements of his predecessor and help mend his failures. Kerry has actually been much more impressive in the latter stages of this campaign than I expected. He has exuded a calm and a steadiness that reassures. He is right about our need for more allies, more prudence, and more tactical discrimination in the war we are waging. I cannot say I have perfect confidence in him, or that I support him without reservations. But not to support anyone in this dangerous time is a cop-out. So give him a chance. In picking the lesser of two risks, we can also do something less dispiriting. We can decide to pick the greater of two hopes. And even in these dour days, it is only American to hope.

Bush has had some notable achievements. He was right to cut taxes as the economy headed toward recession; he was right to push for strong federal standards for education; he was right to respond to September 11 by deposing the Taliban; he was right to alert the world to the unknown dangers, in the age of Al Qaeda, of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is still right that democratization is the only ultimate security in an age of Jihadist terror.

Equally, his presidency can and should be judged on its most fateful decision: to go to war against Iraq without final U.N. approval

So let me get this straight: For everything Bush has done right, you'll damn him because he didn't ask permission from the U.N. to swat a menace to the civilized world. Ho-kay. I can see you're very credible. </sarcasm>

And as for you ARCADIA, do you work for Reuters? 1) Insurgents don't come from Syria and Saudi. Those are terrorists. 2) Name a single war that went "exactly as expected". 3) Your backhanded insinuation that we're better off with Saddam in power and no definitive word on WMD's, than we are with no Saddam and no WMD's, is ludicrous on it's face. 4) I think this ten-times-longer-than-it-needed-to-me diatribe by Sullivan, is just his ego flailing wildly to try to convince himself that it's ok to vote for the wrong guy.

If you're agreeing with that, if you have a hard time getting past that... that is a miserable failure, by your conscience.

"The absence of WMDs is just a miserable failure, pure and simple."

Well, now Kerry is saying the absence of the 'explosives' is a viable threat to everyone! You/he/they cannot have it both ways.

With the UN Security team on Saddam's dole - France/Germany and probably Russia and no doubt a few others. . .what WOULD we have found; and when?

What/when would the UN'inspectors' have found that they did not find in twelve years - no doubt, very lucrative years of 'hunting' for WMD's. . .(right!).

The truth of the matter is; we know Saddam had connections to Osamma; we know (almost for certain; if not for certain) that one covert UN function was the funneling of money to terrorist groups - most likely AlQueda. . .as we were 'waiting'. . .then hunting. . .waiting for Iraq to comply with what. . .UN sanctions (?) - another joke!

And finally, monies going to them as we are at war with them. So who/where is the enemy? We know where it was happening and who was making it all possible.

The ferment/ the money/the availability was sourced in Iraq; by Saddam and the UN and other companies now 'food for oil' program. (One of which belonged to Mark Rich. . .how big was that deposit made by Mark, in a Swiss bank for THAT pardon?) Well, I digress. . .

The ONLY thing to do; was to dismantle this entire bogus UN circus and Saddams tortuous regime and take out some terrorist as well; and take the lid off the whole ugly pot.

IMHO. . .

As to the question:Who better to take on a Marxist regime? NOT A MARXIST for sure!

What do people think Kerry IS; in his real life?

The absence of WMDs is just a miserable failure, pure and simple.
Not anticipating the strength of the insurgency - also a major mistake
I have a hard time getting past these two issues as well

There are ONLY two things one can say with absolute certainty when one goes to war . . .
1. Soldiers will die.
2. Your intel will be wrong.

To expect anything much less everything to go as planned is simply naive.

Did GW think Iraq had WMD's? Absolutely. As did Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, the UN, and anyone else with a measurable IQ. So-Dumb Hussein said he had WMD's. EVERY intelligence service in the world agreed with him. After all, seeing the hell-storm he was about to face, wouldn't a "sane" man do everything in his power to prove to the world he didn't have WMD's if, in fact, he didn't have WMD's?

So-Dumb Hussein turned out to be an insane mass murderer instead of just a mass murderer but doubting ourselves now, after we've saved thousands, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of Iraqis from being murdered in the future plays right into the hands of the panty-waist tree-huggers.

So-Dumb flaunted every UN Resolution passed to hold him accountable. Blame him for the WMD fiasco. Or blame the various intelligence services. Or blame the UN Inspection Teams. But GW isn't personally responsible for there not being any WMD's in Iraq. He can only deal with the facts as they're presented to him.

We'd had eight years of shadow-boxing as our enemies murdered American civilians, soldiers, and innocents with impunity under Pee Wee Clinton before GW came on the scene. Would you rather see us return to THAT?

If so, you reveal your true colors.

Has GW made some mistakes? Absolutely. But I'd much rather have a President who makes mistakes while he's attacking our enemies than a President who makes mistakes while he's hiding under the UN's skirt as our enemies pick us off at will.

We need a President who's willing to make the tough decisions, then act on them, then have enough cojones to follow through on them until our enemies are either killed, captured, or made to realize that Americans will not be used as target practice.

By the way . . . how many more attacks has there been on American soil since 9-11?

The lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remains one of the biggest blows to America's international credibility in a generation. The failure to anticipate an insurgency against the coalition remains one of the biggest military miscalculations since Vietnam.
_______________________________________________________________

First point; Every intelligence agency in the world at the time said Iraq had WMDs. Intense stringency by 3 members of the Security Council was suspicious at the time and later shown to be motivated by economic concerns, not intelligence matters. I maintain that credibility gap was there all along and the Iraq war became a convenient talking point on which to hang the credibility gap.
Point two; 20/20 hindsight and armchair quarterbacking are not valid criticisms until the crystal ball is perfected. And, the US Military is responding to the insurgency with new tactics and armaments. It takes time to rebuild the US Military after the Clinton years.
Thats all of the article I will comment on.

1. WMD's, plans, and just-in-time recipes have been found.

2. The insurgency is bogus -- it is what Bush says. Originated and funded by terrorists and frightened terrorist regimes. The proof....they waited until after the hot season to begin the insurgency. Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, etc. all had June, July, August, September to regroup. The danger to Americans began in Oct/Nov of 2003.

There was no "plan for an insurgency." We are fighting international terrorisms REGROUPED plans in Iraq. Good for us! Fight terrorism over there instead of over here. Draw them into a killing zone. EXCELLENT STRATEGY!

Finally, count the number of incidents in a day and what the incident is.

They are LOW IN NUMBER, propaganda intensive, militarily insignificant attacks directed primarily at their own people.

They are afraid to take on American forces because every time they have we have turned them into bloody, messy puddles of DNA!

We ARE winning!

Don't count on the media to let you know this.

You will see the truth of our continuing progress once President Bush is re-elected and the terrorist's hopes go out the window.

They enemy is going to become very, very discouraged.

Other neocon warbloggers are also backing Kerry (Oxblog, etc.). With Sullivan, gay marriage is the main reason, but with the others, it looks like a gamble that Kerry will secure what they want and Bush will put it at risk. It's akin to a Johnson Democrat backing Nixon in 1968 betting that Nixon would follow through on Vietnam better than Humphrey. Part of the gamble today is that Kerry will be a weak President domestically and feel compelled to hold the line on Iraq, yet prove competent both at home and abroad. Whether Kerry will satisfy them is hard to say, but it is quite a risk and involves plenty of assumptions that could blow up in their faces.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.