Matt Bai’s piece in Sunday’s NYT magazine has generated a lot of ink. From the coverage, I expected to read in it a parody of 1990s liberalism but that’s not what I found. It’s clear Kerry believes that countering Jihadist terrorism is primarily a matter of international police work, alliance building, terrorism, monitoring financial transactions, use of special forces and special ops. But Bush believes all this as well. It’s just that he also believes in the transformative effect of regime change and democratization in the Arab world, and Kerry appears to be a skeptic in this respect. Count me with Bush on this one (with a few reservations). But notice this irony: Kerry’s is clearly the more conservative position here. Conservatives have traditionally been doubters with regard to the transmission of Western values easily onto non-Western societies. They certainly don’t believe it can happen overnight. Bush is therefore running as a Gladstonian liberal in foreign affairs, which is why it’s strange to hear some conservatives writing as if Kerry’s candidacy is the equivalent of Armageddon.
PRAGMATISM AND THE WAR: The question we keep coming back to, therefore, is which emphasis is most appropriate at this stage in the war. Kerryism alone would have been a disaster these past three years. Saddam, for one, would still be in power. But Bush’s Gladstonian big stick alone is also problematic. It’s not a great thing that we have alienated almost every ally (and you should hear what even pro-war Brits say about Bush’s diplomatic skills); it is not a gain that we may have exacerbated Jihadist fervor in some parts of the world; it’s not an advantage in a war of ideas that we have managed to make this country despised in so many places (including Iraq) whose support we need for victory. I can’t believe even Bush’s most fervent partisans think otherwise. It is therefore primarily a pragmatic decision we now face about which approach – Bush’s Gladstone or Kerry’s Disraeli – is best suited for the next four years. My own view is that I do not see any prospect for a forced regime change under Bush in the next four years (and so I’m not so sure it makes a huge difference). Bush has wrecked the credibility of US intelligence and over-stretched our military so as to make any further major pre-emptive wars all but impossible. If our task in the current mop-up stage is therefore nation-building and diplomacy and better police work and more allied cooperation, then Kerry is not unthinkable. Of course, this still leaves the question of whether Kerry will be interested in bringing Iraq into a democratic future. I think he has to be. But he could wimp out. I agree it’s a risk. That’s why I’m still undecided. Who is that libertarian candidate, after all … ?
KERRY’S “NUISANCE” LINE: Powerline says it best. Kerry, in some quarters, is being taken out of context. On the broader issue, it’s hard not to agree with Rudy. I lived through the era of “an acceptable level of terrorism” in Northern Ireland. I loathed it then and I loathe it now. But it is equally true that, as the president has stated, we will probably never live in a world without all terrorism. Suicide bombing is too easy. What we have to do is prevent terrorism from being the major tactic of a world-wide enemy – Jihadist Islam – and prevent the Jihadists from getting hold of WMDs. That requires military action and international cooperation, regime change and nation-building. It requires scaring the hell out of some while charming the bejeezus out of others. It’s not like other wars. Ideally, I’d like Bush + Kerry. But that’s not on the table.
The Dish 