[Marxism] Wall Street Journal editorial: "A War Referendum"

["Walter Lippmann" <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(This Wall Street Journal editorial describes Kerry's 
speech Monday, given on the eve of Bush's presentation 
at the United Nations yesterday, as an anti-war one. 
While Cuba isn't mentioned in this WSJ editorial, its
importance cannot be over-estimated as it is always the 
specter which haunts such deliberations. What Bush and 
his administration have done to Afghanistan, Iraq and 
Haiti, it would love to do if it though they could get 
away with it. 

(The WSJ, which supports Bush, then tries to dissect 
Kerry's remarks and to frame him [up] as a flip-flopper.
This editorial, in a not-too-subtle manner echoes what
Chaney said not long ago, that the United States would 
be hit by a terrorist attack if it didn't elect him and 
George W. Bush in November. This is potent propaganda.
from the viewpoint of extremist political reaction.

(Here's a short note on Kerry's speech from the Cuban
PRENSA LATINA agency which just arrived this morning.)
======================================================

Kerry: Bush Has Totally Lost Credibility

Washington, Sep 22 (Prensa Latina) US Democratic candidate
John Kerry asserted Tuesday in Jacksonville, Florida that
Bush has lost all credibility in the international
community and called on him to "adapt to the real world."

Kerry criticized the president´s speech before the UN
General Assembly, where despite rejection by the world
community, he defended the invasion of Iraq, CNN reported.

The Massachusetts senator declared that Bush´s invasion of
the Arab country has caused "a crisis of historic
proportions" and told US citizens this is the ideal time to
change the leadership of the country.

Kerry´s attacks against Bush are seen as part of his
strategy to cut the sitting president´s advantage in the
polls six weeks before the election, although there has
been recent criticism of the prevalence of poll-weighting
(consistently using proportionately more Republicans than
Democrats in surveys).

Zogby´s poll showed Bush with a three-point advantage on
Sunday, while earlier, The New York Times and CBS found a
difference of 8 points in the president´s favor.

sus/ccs/rob
======================================================

September 22, 2004
REVIEW & OUTLOOK

A War Referendum 
September 22, 2004; Page A28

If nothing else, John Kerry's apparent decision to close
out the 2004 Presidential campaign as the "antiwar"
candidate would seem to be true to himself and to the party
he now leads.

The Democratic nominee entered public life, after all,
questioning both America's policy and its purposes in
Vietnam. He's now staking his bid for the White House as a
critic of the boldest and most divisive American foreign
policy initiative since. In the process, Mr. Kerry just
might offer us all a clarifying debate over the proper
scope and scale of the war on terror, and his Democratic
base a badly needed sense that its misgivings about Iraq in
particular have gotten a fair hearing.

At least that's what we're hoping. Although we'll make no
secret of the fact that we disagree with much of what Mr.
Kerry had to say is his speech at New York University on
Monday, the Senator finally did offer an internally
coherent alternative to the Bush foreign policy of the past
four years.

"We must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The
President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on
terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion," Mr. Kerry
said, in what was a fairly accurate summary of the
strategic differences between the two men. Whereas Mr. Bush
has argued for tackling not just terrorists but their state
sponsors -- as well as for a broad "forward strategy of
freedom" against terrorism's root causes in the Middle
Eastern despotism and poverty -- Mr. Kerry wants to limit
the fight to "the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama
bin Laden and the terrorists."

In Iraq, Mr. Kerry said without equivocation that "we have
traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less
secure." The Democrat painted a sad picture of life in that
country without Saddam Hussein, and suggested he could do a
more competent job than President Bush handling the "mess"
that America now finds itself in. In other words, he now
agrees with Howard Dean that the war he voted to authorize
was a mistake.

As for what to do now, Mr. Kerry continues to insist that
he will do a better job attracting international support
for our efforts. That, he says, will help us train Iraqi
security forces more quickly, which will help create the
right conditions for elections, which will in turn allow
American forces to start withdrawing next summer: "The
principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now
and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's
responsibility..."

When it comes to the war on terror's grand strategy,
readers probably won't be surprised to learn we prefer the
Bush version. Limiting the definition of the enemy to bin
Laden and his associates makes little sense in an age when
terrorists cavort with rogue states and multiply like
blades of grass in the despotic soil of the Middle East.
Without an Iraq-type plan for changing the region, the U.S.
would seem condemned to a century of playing terrorist
whack-a-mole. If Mr. Kerry has an alternative root-causes
strategy, he has yet to articulate it.

When it comes to Iraq specifically, Mr. Kerry's picture of
the country is unrealistically bleak and many of his
proposals are already in motion. Iraqi security forces are
being trained, after all, and Mr. Bush and Prime Minister
Allawi remain committed to the January elections. As for
getting other countries to share more of the burden, good
luck. Sometimes we think we might enjoy a Kerry victory
just for the spectacle of watching a Secretary of State
Biden or Holbrooke try to convince the Europeans to accept
responsibility for their own security, never mind Iraq's.

The line about making Iraq "the world's responsibility" was
perhaps the most revealing in Mr. Kerry's speech. Whereas
John F. Kennedy's Democrats pledged to "pay any price, bear
any burden" in the promotion and defense of liberty,
today's Vietnam-scarred party sees little or no special
role for American providence in the world. And the world
knows it. Such statements risk encouraging our Baathist and
jihadist enemies in their belief that we lack staying
power. Likewise, they signal to our potential Iraqi allies
that it would be wise to avoid choosing sides until
November.

Let us be clear: We're not questioning Mr. Kerry's
patriotism or his right to make an issue of Iraq. 
But let's not kid ourselves either that the words of 
Presidential candidates don't have consequences.

Which brings us to the gamble inherent in Mr. Kerry's
decision to mount an antiwar campaign: He risks being seen
as hoping for an October of unprecedented violence in Iraq.
Despite all the challenges to date, current polls show
clear if not overwhelming American support for the war.
While it may be possible to run an antiwar campaign without
appearing to root for the enemy, the record of others
who've tried would not seem encouraging. Mr. Kerry would be
on stronger ground if his criticism of Mr. Bush's war
management included a vow to win the war, rather than a
promise to leave Iraq at the earliest possible moment.

As we've noted before, one of the striking trends in recent
years has been the complete role reversal of our two major
parties in their philosophy of foreign policy, with
Republicans pushing idealism and Democrats deriding it as
"neocon" folly. This campaign is shaping up to be no
exception.

Mr. Kerry is offering a minimalist conception of the war on
terror, focused on al Qaeda and a rapid exit from Iraq. Mr.
Bush spoke to the United Nations yesterday again pushing
his democracy-for-the-Middle-East line. No one will be able
to say voters weren't offered a clear foreign policy choice
come November.



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism