by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 20, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

ompeting for bragging rights on national defense, expected Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry rubber-stamped President George W. Bush's plan to “stay the course,” putting more boots on the ground in Iraq. Instead of opposing the war, Kerry has made himself indistinguishable from Bush, splitting hairs over minor differences in multilateral approaches. Beating Kerry to the punch, the White House already signaled a wider United Nations role in Iraq, deferring to U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to design a new government when the U.S. returns sovereignty June 30. Transferring sovereignty doesn't stop the killing fields, claiming over 100 casualties in the first three weeks of April. With Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, Al Qaeda, sponsoring a guerrilla war, the U.S. finds itself in quicksand without a way out. Kerry's approach offers little hope to voters looking for an exit.

      Calling for a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader blindsided Kerry, pointing out little differences with the White House. Comfortable with his new status as presumptive Democratic nominee, Kerry forgot how former Democratic candidate Vermont Gov. Howard Dean ascended to frontrunner, before self-destructing in the Iowa. Dean's vehement antiwar stance launched him into the lead, resonating with a wide spectrum of antiwar voters. Conventional wisdom held that Dean's views were far too liberal to compete in November, calling into question his electability. Yet, Dean's antiwar stance not only energized the Democratic base, it reached out to independents and crossovers opposed to Bush's Iraq policy. With a growing guerrilla war and mounting casualties, Kerry needs to switch gears and take a clear stand on Iraq.

      Witnessing a change in position, a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll showed Bush pulling ahead of Kerry 49% to 43%, with Nader at 6%. Nader's rising appeal is directly connected with his unambiguous opposition to the war. Kerry's slippage reflects his inability to take decisive positions, especially on Iraq. Telling voters he would “stay the course” in Iraq, Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran and high-profile antiwar protester, now sits on the fence. Kerry can't have it both ways: Against Bush's rationale for war but now supporting a disastrous postwar plan. “Staying the course,” means fighting an untenable guerrilla war and accepting mounting U.S. casualties. “The way to save U.S and Iraqi lives and reverse the escalating spiral of violence is for the United States to go back home,” said Nader, advocating U.N. peacekeepers, not U.S. troops to secure Iraq's new sovereignty.

      Iraq's civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer III already signaled that Iraq's fledgling military and police force can't guarantee security, leaving the dirty work to U.S. troops for the foreseeable future. Whether admitted to or not, Iraq's security forces have divided loyalty, unwilling to attack fellow countrymen fighting U.S. occupation. Having confirmed that Iraq poses no threat to U.S. national security, Nader's correct calling for unconditional withdrawal. Finding and destroying WMD was the original mission, not liberating or democratizing Iraq. Without a threat to national security, there's no justification for placing troops in harm's way. Sacrificing more U.S. lives in Iraq won't make the world safer from terror, nor, for that matter, does it increase the chances of winning an bloody guerrilla war. Kerry's insistence on “staying the course” hurts his credibility.

      When Dean was picked to win the nomination, it was due his feisty antiwar rhetoric. No candidate better articulated the collective frustrations of Democrats more than Dean, until personal failings upended his candidacy, handing the nomination to Kerry. Kerry must take a searching inventory of essential issues to galvanize his base. His stated positions on Iraq turn off key constituents, especially young voters worried about Bush reinstating the draft after reelection. With enlistment in the military way down, it's a matter of time before voluntary programs no longer work. Ongoing wars discourage prospective recruits from signing up. “You see all the early phases of Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam,” said Nader, making a direct parallel to Iraq. Lest anyone forget, U.S. officials—at the White House and Pentagon—made the same optimistic promises about “staying the course” in Vietnam.

      Putting his cards on the table, Bush told the American people what to expect about Iraq during his presidency. Under his watch, he promised to “finish the job” and “stay the course” regardless of the human and financial toll. Facing reelection, Bush can't concede that his Iraq policy is a suicide mission for U.S. troops and the national treasury. Kerry must do much more than nitpick about whose multilateral approach is better. It's not enough to attack Nader for playing the spoiler. Kerry won't sway Nader supporters until he gets off the fence and presents a real alternative to Bush's policies. Talking about “staying the course” in Iraq siphons off key support, ready to back any candidate willing to stop the growing hemorrhage to the U.S. military and national treasury. Recent polls show that Kerry has gone in the wrong direction. If he stays on the fence, he can expect more of the same.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operations Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.