THE DEBATE IS JOINED
David Brooks writes today that after seeing the emphasis on things and people military in Boston -- the endorsements from veterans, admirals, generals, the introduction of John Kerry from the Vietnam "Band of Brothers -- and listening to speech after speech calling for toughness, and promising strength, he was primed to hear Kerry's speech as a return to "muscular moderation." But when he goes back to read the text, he notes, he finds only "an incoherent disaster," a speech that "skirts almost every tough issue" and that "comes out on every side of every major concern."
I think that's wrong. I agree -- you have to go back and read the speech again in "the unforgiving light of day." You have to parse the critical section on the war carefully. But when you do, you'll see that there is a clear position there, and that it lines up in such perfect opposition to that of President Bush's that we are set up for a clear debate over the next few months that will allow us to choose between two very distinct visions of where this country should be in the world over the next four years.
If there was a single question we would ask, or see this speech as answering, it would be: did the events of September 11th change the world, or change the way the United States should relate to the rest of the world?
Here is John Kerry's answer:
As president, I will ask the hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system, so policy is guided by facts and facts are never distorted by politics.
And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.
Remember, of course, that facts are excellent things, but there are often far too few of them, and the question we are all too often confronted with is what to do when time is short, and the facts are in dispute.
As to only going to war when we have to, that sounds good to, but it begs the question rather then answering it. Does that mean only when our national survival is at stake? What about that of our allies? You remember the old question -- would you trade Chicago to save Berlin? Well, today we aren't talking about a nuclear exchange, so today the question isn't quite so stark. Today the question is whether we would trade American lives to save Berlin. Would we? What about for strategic minerals?
What about to save our national soul? I'm a strong advocate of the idea that there are places and times when humanitarian crises are so dire that a nation as rich and as strong as we are cannot stand aside and claim to be a moral force in the world. Rwanda was one such moment, and indeed we had an international treaty obligation to intervene which we not only ignored but played word games to ignore, by refusing to call the situaton what it was -- a genocide.
Senator Kerry has called for the situaton in Sudan to be called a genocide. That would mean a military intervention is called for. If he thinks a multilateral force is coming together on this, he can think again. The UN won't even agree to sanctions.
So I guess it all comes down to what the meaning of "have to" is, doesn't it?
He continues:
I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.
As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice . . . we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."
So, lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war. (My emph.)
First, note that he includes the need to protect both the American people and American values, so this is not quite as restrictive as it might have sounded on first hearing. But that's the standard for what you protect. As for when you protect it -- the bar is set pretty high.
Remember that President Bush was criticized, unfairly, for going to war in Iraq when the evidence did not meet hte standard of "imminent threat," and there was a small debate over whether he had articulated that as the criteria, whether he had said Iraq was indeed an imminent threat. In fact, President Bush had said we must not wait for Iraq to develop into that kind of threat. Here Senator Kerry is explicitly saying we must wait -- until the threat is imminent (presumably provably imminent) you don't go.
He's also saying that you try everything you can to avoid war.
How does that process requirement (the obligation to negotiate) interact with the evidentiary requirement (we wouldn't act unless the threat was defined as imminent)? If the threat became imminent, but you hadn't exhauted diplomatic options, did you continue negotiations?
Sounds like it. He's setting up two completely independent check lists here, both of which have to be met before a war starts.
And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace
Okay, a third checklist.
I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.
What's our ultimate goal in Iraq? Getting our soldiers replaced with those of other countries. Beyond that, he doesn't have a vision for Iraq that he's willing or able or interested in articulating.
And we need to rebuild our alliances so we can get the terrorists before they get us
I believe this speaks to law enforcement actions. If we all work together, we can track them down more effectively. It has to. It can't speak to military actions. Because he continues:
I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president.
Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.
I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.
Good to know, I guess, but is there anyone you can envision as a serious candidate for the office who wouldn't respond this way as President? More important is what this section tells us about the way he defines "when the use of force is required." When is it required? When we have been attacked. Because, after all, once we've been attacked, there's no question, no need to sift through uncertain or incomplete evidence, no need to evaluate threats. At that point we know.
More:
And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops, not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure.
We will double our Special Forces to conduct terrorist operations, anti-terrorist operations, and we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists.
Why a larger military? To do more? To be more aggressive? No. In fact explicitly the opposite. Rather, because when the Guard and Reserve are called up to complete their obligation, that constitutes a "backdoor draft."
The newest weapons and technology are nice, but there's no reason to believe the current administration isn't doing that (in fact, generally Republican adminsitrations are critiqued for more technology buys.)
Doubling Special Forces is, by the way, incoherent. If you're going to attack the administration for a strategy that tried to fight too lean, you're attacking them for a strategy that was overly dependent on a strategy that depended on a combination of Special Forces and airpower to avoid boots on the ground. So if you're going to increase the size of the Army to avoid the problems of that strategy, why also increase the size of Special Forces? What are you going to use them for?
As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might, our principles as well as our firepower.
In these dangerous days, there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words.
Democratization? A word on that then?
No, at that point he's off to talking about homeland security.
So the bottom line here is that when it comes to questions of what level of risk is acceptable, Sen. Kerry wants to tolerate much, much more risk before going to war (only facts, only an imminent threat, and only then after all available avenues have been exhausted or we've been attacked.) September 11th may have changed many things, but it has not created a world in which the level or risk we can tolerate before acting has been lowered. You may not like that position, but it's clear, coherent, and eminently debateable.
The world changed on a terrible September morning. And since that day, we've changed the world.
September 11th is a bright line dividing the world into "before" and "after."
He then runs through the changes in the world that can be attributed to American action.
After September the 11th, we had to look at the threats in a new light. One of the lessons of September the 11th is we must deal with threats before they fully materialize.
The September the 11th commission concluded that our institutions of government had failed to imagine the horror of that day. After September the 11th, we cannot fail to imagine that a brutal tyrant, who hated America, who had ties to terror, had weapons of mass destruction and might use those weapons or share his deadly capability with terrorists was not a threat
One of the things September 11th has changed is how evidence is evaluted. When you look at dots, you have to be willing to imagine that the lines between them might exist, whether there's proof of those lines or not.
He's now finally articulating the link to September 11th clearly:
When he continued to deceive the weapons inspectors, I had a decision to make: to hope for the best and to trust the word of a madman and a tyrant, or remember the lessons of September the 11th and defend our country.
BUSH: Given that choice, I will defend America every time.
The lessons of September 11th aren't that Saddam was involved with those attacks. The lessons are that sometimes dots are just dots and sometimes they're more, and in a world full of mad men sometimes we can't wait to be sure.
See, you can't talk sense to the terrorists. You can't hope for the best. You can't negotiate with them.
We will engage those enemies around the world so we do not have to face them here at home.
Negotations? Don't think so. And we aren't waiting to be attacked. Because if that's their intent, they'll take their shot.
BUSH: We will keep our commitments to help Afghanistan and Iraq become peaceful, democratic societies. These two nations are now governed by strong leaders. They're on the path to free elections.
More and more people in Afghanistan and Iraq are stepping up to secure their own country from these killers. They understand the benefits of a free society. Moms and dads in Afghanistan and Iraq want their children to grow up in a peaceful world and so do we.
The people of these countries can count on our continued help. When we acted to protect our own security, we promised to help deliver them from tyranny, to restore their sovereignty, to set them on the path of liberty. And when America gives its word, America will keep its word.
The job in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is more than just to get out of Iraq (and Afghanistan) but to secure a foothold that will begin to create an environment that will in turn make us safer.
As for getting the troops the best technology possible:
And when these good folks are in harm's way, they deserve the best pay, the best equipment, the best possible training.
That's why last September, when our troops were in combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I proposed supplemental funding to support them in their missions. The legislation provided for body armor and vital equipment, hazard pay, health benefits, ammunition, fuel, spare parts. In the Senate, only a handful of what I would call out-of-the- mainstream folks — that would be 12 senators — voted against that legislation. Two of the 12 are my opponent and his running mate.
Ah, oops.
Back to Iraq and Afghanistan:
You see, a free and peaceful Iraq and a free and peaceful Afghanistan will be powerful examples to a neighborhood that needs the example of liberty. Free countries do not export terror. Free countries do not stifle the dreams of their citizens.
By serving the ideal of liberty, we're bringing hope to others. And that makes America more secure.
By being resolute and strong, by working for the ideal of liberty, after four more years, America will be more secure and the world will be more peaceful.
The point, again, is that September 11th changed things. It changed the way we evalute risk, and therefore the way we choose to interpret evidence, when we think it's time to act, and what we think the goal of our actions is. The 9/11 commission fundamentally explains why the President is pretty much unrepetent about the decision to go to war. The evidence was incomplete. It spoke to a great risk. There was no way to get better evidence before a decision had to be made. Therefore I acted. Now, in fact, he still defends the argument that there is now evidence supporting the argument that given Saddam's intent and WMD programs, the deicision was the right one substantively as well as procedurally. But it is the procedural aspect, the way risk was evaluated, where the decision lines up as a perfect mirror image with what Sen. Kerry is advocating.
You may disagree with this position. But it's coherent and clear, and eminently debateable.
Lets, as they say, get it on.
Comments