July/August 2004

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Kerry and Bush on Iraq: Same Incoherence

Ali Abunimah is the co-founder of Electonic Iraq, for which he wrote this article, excerpted here. Electronic Iraq (www.electroniciraq.net) is a joint project of Voices in the Wilderness and The Electronic Intifada.

Senator John Kerry, the Democratic challenger to President George Bush, has emerged by default as the rallying point for Americans alarmed by the growing chaos and violence in Iraq. In stump speeches around the country, Kerry has proclaimed his plan to "win the peace in Iraq," but it does not add up to anything more coherent than the current policy.

Superficially, Kerry appears to be making a sharp attack on Bush. His official website says the Democrat will "level with the American people." This means saying frankly, "the security situation is deteriorating and dangerous." Kerry says, "we should stop sugar-coating what's going on in Iraq. Our troops know how bad it is there. It doesn't help them for the White House to suggest we are making so much progress when we are not."

So what does Kerry have to offer? The main points of his plan differ very little from the policy Bush set out in his April 13, 2004 prime-time news conference. Kerry wants to increase US troops on the ground because, "We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply can't allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism." The key assumption behind this strategy is the highly questionable one that the United States can succeed in Iraq as long as it 'stays the course'.

Kerry proposes to "Transform [the] US Force into a NATO Security Force Commanded by an American, and Bring in Other Countries." What Kerry's plan boils down to then is this: he is more charming than Bush. Many would agree, but this is a thin basis to assume that he will be able to persuade Iraqis, Europeans, or other Arabs to risk their lives to save the United States' skin.

Yet, insufficient forces are not the problem. Consider Falluja: after two weeks of frequently-broken ceasefires, US commanders in rare consultation with the White House decided not to renew their full-scale offensive on the besieged city. According to the Washington Post, the decision was taken "in order to avoid a military incursion that could entail urban combat, civilian casualties and a wave of retributive strikes outside Fallujah, further poisoning relations between Iraqis and US occupation forces."

Without sounding like a defeatist, Kerry cannot acknowledge a live possibility: that the United States may have no influence on what happens in Iraq the day after its forces leave, whether they leave now or in five years time. The only real choice may be how high a price Americans want to pay for that knowledge.

It may be the tragedy of US politics that no one can say that the war is lost until popular revulsion at a stream of flag-draped coffins coming back from Iraq makes that conclusion unavoidable.

Previous Article    Next Article