April 11, 2004
SENATOR SPACE CADET:
Fighting the Wrong War (BOB KERREY, 4/11/04, NY Times)
My...conclusion about the president's terrorism strategy has three parts. First, I believe President Bush's overall vision for the war on terrorism is wrong. — military and civilian alike.Second, the importance of this distinction is that it forces us to face the Muslim world squarely and to make an effort to understand it. It also allows us to insist that we be judged on our merits — and not on the hate-filled myths of the street. Absent an effort to establish a dialogue that permits respectful criticism and disagreement, the war on terrorism will surely fail. The violence against us will continue.
Such a dialogue does not require us to cease our forceful and at times deadly pursuit of those who have declared war on us. Quite the contrary. It would enable us to gather Muslim allies in a cause that will bring as much benefit to them as it does to us. That's why President Bush was right to go to a Washington mosque shortly after Sept. 11. His visit — and his words of assurance that ours was not a war against Islam but against a much smaller group that has perverted the teachings of the Koran — earned the sympathy of much of the Muslim world.
That the sympathy wasn't universal, that some in the Arab world thought the murder of 3,000 innocents was justified, caused many Americans to question whether the effort to be fair was well placed. It was — and we would be advised to make the effort more often.
Third, we should swallow our pride and appeal to the United Nations for help in Iraq. We should begin by ceding joint authority to the United Nations to help us make the decisions about how to transfer power to a legitimate government in Iraq. Until recently I have not supported such a move. But I do now. Rather than sending in more American forces or extending the stay of those already there, we need an international occupation that includes Muslim and Arab forces.
Time is not on our side in Iraq. We do not need a little more of the same thing. We need a lot more of something completely different.
This is Mr. Kerrey's try out for the VP slot on the Kerry ticket and it fulfills his reputation for empty-headedness. The war is in fact against Islam as it currently exists, as a justification for, even a requirement of, totalitarianism. Nothing could be worse than for us to ally ourselves with the regimes of the region when we should instead be pressuring them to reform their systems and the religion as a whole to Reform. For instance, the recent liberalizing in Libya does not make Colonel Qadaffi our ally--it just gets his nation headed in the right direction. This is a time to keep the pedal to the metal, not to ease up. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 11, 2004 1:06 PM
"Absent an effort to establish a dialogue that permits respectful criticism and disagreement..."
All they need to do is call. I'm sure Bush & Powell would be happy to engage in a dialog with them. They can respectfully criticise us for allowing women to drive and for failing to drop homosexuals from tall buildings.
"It would enable us to gather Muslim allies in a cause that will bring as much benefit to them as it does to us."
Just what benfit would it bring us? I guess one could claim that we could have the benfit of sha'ria, but somehow I suspect that NOW wouldn't be too eager to sign on.
"we should swallow our pride and appeal to the United Nations for help in Iraq. We should begin by ceding joint authority to the United Nations to help us make the decisions..."
Yeah, like the UN has an established track record in bringing freedom and prosperity in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and Gaza?
Guilani summed it up pretty good "they're wrong and we are right". Much clearer thinker than Bob Kerrey and better Vice-Presidential candidate.
Ray's correct. OJ you said it well also (although you wouldn't be worth a dang as vice-presidential candidate)
Posted by: h-man at April 11, 2004 3:00 PMKerry/Kerrey?
No way. Just no way.
Bush & Rove have already tipped their hand that subtle ridicule will be a potent arrow in their quiver.
Kerry/Kerrey?
Please.
Posted by: Andrew X at April 11, 2004 3:13 PMThis is incredibly irresponsible for him to do before the commission has released its findings. Of course, "irresponsible" has been a theme from the Democrats on the commission, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I do hope he is taken to task for it, though.
Posted by: Timothy at April 11, 2004 3:27 PMAt first I thought Bob Kerrey had been assigned hte designated "good cop" role among Democrats below Lee Hamilton on the Sept. 11 panel. Let Ben-Veniste be the attack dog; Kerrey would play the role of statesman while getting in a shot or two of his own that would be spun as more credible in the media because of his outwardly non-partisan tone. Now, I'm not so sure if Kerrey just can't control himself from zig-zagging from seemingly contradictory positions faster than John Kerry or Richard Clarke could even imagine.
After starting off taking the high road, Kerrey goes off on Jim Angle and Fox News when they released the background briefing showing Clarke contradicted himself on the war on terror. Then he turns around and pens a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece going after Clarke on Iraq. Then he turns around and attacks Condi Rice during the Thursday hearing and focuses on his objections to the war on Iraq.
At least today's piece in the Times is roughly on the same page as his snarky remarks to Rice at the hearing. If he had flipped again people would need to stock up on cartons of Dramamine to survive the motion sickness from watching for former senator move from one side of the street to the other.
Posted by: John at April 11, 2004 3:49 PM
The UN has already fled the field, after raping the Iraqi people for 12 years.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 11, 2004 6:36 PMI've never seen such a lengthy and verbose call for a retreat.
Posted by: Peter B at April 11, 2004 6:55 PMWhen is UN going to be a Jay Leno laugh line?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 11, 2004 9:47 PMMaybe we should play by Thanh My rules, Senator. You know one of the problems with his non
Christian army idea, is that they would likely
be infiltrated by Al Queda, Hindu or Israeli;
none are good alternatives
But would this mean Kerrey-Rice VP debates?
Posted by: mike earl at April 12, 2004 1:20 PM