So, is Kristof working for Lieberman, or Bush?

[Brotherjohn]

(EDITED CLOSING PARAGRAPH)

First, he writes a column about how we shouldn’t get all mad or anything that Bush has ruined the economy and gotten us into an unjustified war which has claimed hundreds of American lives and thousands of Iraqi lives.

Then, in today’s column, he opens with:
“It's easy to criticize the Bush administration for its foolishness in invading Iraq, at a cost so far of 400 American lives and (one study suggests) at least 11,000 Iraqi lives. But it's much harder to figure out what to do next.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/opinion/19KRIS.html)

He goes on to criticize both Republicans and Democrats (but mostly the latter) for not “being straight with the public: now that Mr. Bush has gotten us into this mess, there's no simple way out.”

Now, forgive me if I’ve misinterpreted what the Democratic candidates have been saying, but if I had to sum it up, I don’t think I could do any better than “Mr. Bush has gotten us into this mess” and “there's no simple way out.”

As evidence that the Democrats aren’t being straight with regards to solutions in Iraq, Kristof says that he’s “asked two Democratic presidential candidates, Richard Gephardt and another who spoke off the record, if it's really credible to offer the U.N. and NATO as a solution to Iraq. They harrumph a bit in a way that I interpret to mean: ‘Maybe not, but it works in front of television cameras.’”

Well, YOU interpret them to mean that, so that MUST be what they mean with their “harrumphing”! They couldn’t actually mean, say, that “we’re in a mess and there’s no simple way out”. They couldn’t actually mean that, could they? That would mean that they’re being straight with us!

Kristof says that “the administration's new approach is risky, weakens our control and may result in less democracy than the U.S. had hoped, it is probably the best of a bunch of bad options.” He further lambastes the Democratic candidates for doing nothing but suggesting handing over more power to the U.N. and NATO.

Now, forget for the moment that this is Bush’s mess, and his responsibility to clean up. And forget for the moment that he probably wouldn’t have felt the need for a new approach at all were it not for criticism from Democrats (remember just a few weeks ago, when we were being told that everything was peachy keen, despite the rising body count?). Forget that many have been saying since before Day 1 that a “new approach” was needed.

The big problem Kristof has with Democratic suggestions that we “hand over more power to the United Nations and bring in NATO troops” is that, well, he thinks it’s not enough, I guess… or he thinks it won’t work at all. I’m not sure what he thinks. But HE, in his infinite wisdom, suggests “three steps that are worth taking. First, bring back regular Iraqi Army units to bolster security. Second, be more attentive to nationalism — that means we should avoid privatization (even though it's a good idea) because Iraqis will suspect us of stealing their assets. Third, resist the temptation to anoint Ahmad Chalabi, who is resented by ordinary Iraqis as our puppet.”

But again, unless I’ve misinterpreted them, I believe Democratic candidates have also been suggesting these things, and I haven’t seen the Bush administration move seriously in any of these three directions. If the U.N. and NATO are given serious roles, it is likely that all three of these goals will be forwarded (at least much moreso than if the U.S. retains absolute control). Yes, as Kristof point out, “the U.N. and NATO have even less stomach for suicide bombs than Americans do.” But perhaps with serious U.N. and NATO involvement, and more control given to Iraqis who will not be seen as U.S. puppets, there will be less targets for suicide bombs, and fewer willing suicide bombers.

So, in short, Kristof yet again “harrumphs” that we just shouldn’t criticize Bush for getting us into this mess, killing thousands for a pointless cause (in a way that I interpret to mean, based on his recent columns, “Don’t hate Bush! Love him! Love him!”). We should criticize Democrats, who would like to someday be president (but aren't now), for not getting out of this mess!

[La_Serpiente]

1. I think some of his criticism is worthwhile

For example, he is right when he says that we shouldn't privitize most of the Iraquis services. In fact, that would be in violation of International Law. Since Iraqui oil was nationalized before, it must remained nationalized. If the Bush administration goes into Iraq and hands the oil off to ExxonMobil, then I am certain the Iraquis would revolt. They would view it as some other company coming in and taking over Iraq.

Are the Iraquis patriotic people? Based on what I have heard, I would think so.

One thing I would like for the Democratic nominees to talk about is the educational system in Iraq. this is a war of ideas and that must be fought in the minds of Iraquis, not on the governmental structure of Iraq. With the capital of foriegn nations, hopefully more advanced textbooks and equipment can be sent there.

Do I blame the Bush administration for failing? Yes. Did I agree with this war? No. There was always a smarter way to do this, and PNAC and the boys just couldn't see it.

[Brotherjohn]

2. Yes, he makes some decent suggestions. But that's not his main point.

The thrust of his column is to criticize the Democrats for allegedly doing nothing but suggesting that the U.N. and NATO be given a larger role, when in fact, they have also made the same suggestions he makes.

Democrats (candidates and otherwise) have been criticizing the "Halliburtonization" of Iraq for quite some time, and have been criticizing the undue weight and authority the bush administration has given exiles like Chalabi, at the expense of Iraqis chosen by Iraqis.