Ok, I'll admit irritation. "Case closed," are you joking? Kagan and Kristol want a return to a two war military, and want more hawkishness. Kaplan takes the poistion that NoKo default on the 1994 agreement was all Bush's fault. Leaving aside the extreme tendentiousness of Kaplan's critique (I mean, really), these aren't the same criticisms, nor do they obviously reinforce each other.
Yeah, sure, it's possible that both mulit-lateral and bi-lateral could be pursued in concert to good effect. But it's not like a slam dunk that this is a good idea. Indeed, one might wonder *why* the US needs to get in front of the ball here? Why don't we want to make this as much China's problem as ours? Kerry's unifying principle -- understandbly -- is that all actions by Bush are mistakes. But isn't the substution of the campaign rhetoric of one's preferred candidate for one's own considerd judgment something we all want to avoid? I hope you don't believe there are Arab and European armies eager to take on the job of policing Iraq just because Kerry says so.
Ah, "case closed" that this was not a straddle. As to the correct policy with regard to North Korea, I won't even pretend to have an informed opinion.
Ok, fair. I admit, after hearing about the French garrisoning of Iraq to occur 2 days post a Kerry victory, I'm touchy.
I'm hyperbolizing. I just mean the entire delusion that summits will produce new allies that will help peacekeeping. It's like, whatever.
Also, I think I'm practically a co-blogger at this point...
I agree the alliances stuff just isn't compelling. Noam Scheiber had two good posts about that here and here.
I think the alliances stuff and the NoKo stuff are similar in some ways. About NoKo--right now the debate is about how to shut the barn door. I just don't see any policy that has a reasonable policy of getting Kim Jong Il to give up his nuclear weapons at this point--and I don't see how you'd verify it if he did. So the argument is more about what should have been done; and the point is to think about what will succeed with the next crisis. Bush's policy of refusing to talk bilaterally at all didn't work out well; Kerry is pointing out that there are policies that could've worked. I think (you'll be surprised to hear) that this shows that Kerry is probably better equipped to deal with the next unanticipated crisis; Bush in this case showed himself to be remarkably inflexible (and uninformed about the consequences of bilateral talks).
As for Iraq--yeah, we know that France ain't sending Kerry any troops either, but there's a good reason for Kerry to pretend that's his plan. I happen to think (and baa doesn't) that things are so fucked up in Iraq now that there's no easy solution, but Kerry can't say that, because "Things are really, really fucked up" isn't a winning slogan even when it's true. I also think that Kerry has a better grasp on how bad the situation is than Bush does, that his recognition of what would have been a better policy gives me confidence he'll do better than Bush with the next crisis (which may be spelled almost like "iraq"), and Bush doesn't get any points for Iraq being too fucked up for Kerry to offer a viable plan. But baa isn't going to agree with my assessment of the state of Iraq, so he's not going to agree with that either. Still, I don't think Kerry's delusional--he's got to work around what Josh Marshall described as Bush being protected by the magnitude of his failure. Hmm, I think I worked a tendentious point into that last sentence too.....
I'm just gald you've made peace with misleading the public for the greater good, Matt!
Seriously, baa, that worries me. But it's a Prisoner's Dilemma-type situation--if one campaign feels free to lie, and one tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the second one is going to get killed. So what do you do?
This applies only to campaigns, not to governing. When you're governing, you're not trying to get an advantage over the other guy--or at least you shouldn't.
Incidentally, I don't think Kerry is lying. I think he really would like to get more allies on board, and that would help (a bit), and he's (a bit) more likely to succeed at that than Bush. But still, I think that the debate over "How do we get out of this mess?" has the most informational value as a debate about "How do we stay out of the next?"
I think it will be difficult, but not impossible, for Kerry to persuade leading nations like France and Germany that it is in their interest for Iraq not to be a failed state, and that their participation would greatly improve the chances for Iraq to be a successful democracy.
But it will be impossible for Bush to persuade anyone of this. First and foremost, things the Bush admin vouches for on a stack of Bibles have a funny way of turning out not to be true. Second, Bush doesn't think he needs those other countries. Finally, other countries no doubt believe that to bail Bush out in Iraq would be to reward him for his reckless and ill-considered policy. But they might not hold Bush's folly against Kerry.