Who Will Dare to Bug Out?
According to Michael Young, Kerry still sounds confused on Iraq: will he escalate in order to make the troops there safer, and bring events to a conclusion, or not? Is he prepared to fight for democracy there, or not? On the larger issue, he comes close to promising no pre-emptive wars, but of course no sane leader would actually keep that promise in all situations.
It may be an argument in Bush's favour that if things really go badly in Iraq, he might have more freedom to pull out than Kerry would. "Nixon goes to China" has become a familiar way of saying a leader's sustained oppostion to enemy x over many years provides that leader with credibility in changing tactics, and negotiating with that same enemy. He can't be giving in out of softness, seems to be the reasoning; he must be acting on strategic considerations. Nixon bugging out of Vietnam may be another example.
Kerry voted for the Iraq war, but not for the funding for it. He now says U.S. troops there need more support, but the U.S. shouldn't be building firehalls there. If he were elected, wouldn't he find himself under enormous pressure to fight on, no matter what, to make up for earlier straddles?
Alberta premier Ralph Klein said the other day he believes in finding out which way the parade is going, then getting to its head. If prolonged fighting by U.S. forces in Iraq becomes unpopular, it may be that either Bush or Kerry as president would want to pull out. But would they have the same ability or freedom to do it?
If Bush is re-elected, and has a Republican congress, he will be proposing massive spending cuts just about everywhere. How about the military? The 9/11 commission reminded us that the fight against terrorism is different from a fight against governments and recognizable armies. A case could be made for cutting back on conventional forces everywhere.
|
