KERRY and his "lack" of an IRAQ Plan [View All]

[liberalpragmatist]

Hear me out. Please note that I put quotes around the word "lack." This is because Kerry did have an Iraq plan.

The reason I bring this is up is because in talking to many Bush supporters who were uneasy about voting for him, it occurred to me that Kerry lost these voters (for the most part) not because of his Iraq War vote but b/c they said he didn't have a plan for Iraq.

I'm not going to pretend that Kerry's initial vote (and more damagingly, his $87 billion vote) didn't hurt him. Frankly, I don't think the IWR resolution vote hurt him so much as the $87 billion-vote. Most people I know were willing to accept that somebody could change their mind over the war after having voted for it. The $87 billion-vote hurt Kerry more for the people I talked to. The Kerry campaign made a major failure in not properly explaining this vote to people. In hindsight, it may have been better to have voted for the $87 billion, even though Dean would have pounded on him for it at the time (that's not a slam at Dean - that's simply truth. Dean slammed Gephardt mercilessly after he voted for the $87 billion).

MORE significant that those 2 votes, however, for most of the people I talked to, was the impression that Kerry couldn't do anything to fix Iraq. People would constantly say "he had no plan for Iraq" or "his plan is the same as Bush's." Kerry DID have a plan for Iraq, but the truth is that it was quite close to Bush's stated plan.

Whereas the Kerry campaign's handling of the $87 billion-vote is more open to criticism, the truth is that I don't see how the Kerry campaign could have realistically altered the second situation. The truth is that Iraq is in such a bad situation, that any plan that MIGHT work is going to look very similar in writing. That's not a coincidence - it's a result of Bush's f*cking up leading to a complete lack of good alternatives. And when you had "experts" analyzing how to win in Iraq, they'd also criticize BOTH Bush and Kerry then offer a plan that looked remarkably similar to Kerry's.

Moreover, pundits would constantly carp on Kerry for lacking a plan on Iraq. Funny, I never saw the pundits coming up with a plan of their own.

Simply put, for many wavering Bush supporters, they wanted a magic solution to the Iraq conflict and when Kerry offered a plan that was somewhat similar to Bush's plan, they'd claim that Kerry wasn't offering a difference.

So what could Kerry have done? Certainly there will be some that would advocate outright withdrawal. However, note that of the candidates, only Kucinich advocated this - even Dean did not. And moreover, while personally I think withdrawal needs to be studied and may eventually be the only option, withdrawal at this point would probably be disastrous. Unlike Vietnam, there is no central power that could take control.

Personally, I think Kerry should have made a statement like this at the debates:

"The President's plan and my plan are not identical. There are some key differences on international cooperation and military strategy, for example. However, there is an element of truth in the President's claim that our plans are the same. The truth is they are somewhat similar. That's not a coincidence. It's a reflection of the fact that there are very few good options left in Iraq. The situation is critical. There is no magic solution to be found. With so few alternatives, every plan is going to look relatively similar. What I offer you is different, more responsible, leadership. Time and time again, this administration has made catastrophically wrong decisions. Time and time again, they have exhibited unbelievable incompetence. And time and time again, they go against their own plans. We have to now look to the future. If a surgeon botches your surgery, do you go back the same surgeon to fix the mistake? By the same token, Who are you going to trust to carry out the painstakingly difficult work of winning this war? The man who broke it in the first place or a man who promises a fresh start?"