Keep Your Eyes On The Road, Your Hands Upon The Wheel

John "Steady As She Goes" Kerry reacts calmly to the bad news out of Iraq, reminding us of the benefit of electing an older, more wrinkly statesmen:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Wednesday called the situation in Iraq "one of the greatest failures of diplomacy and failures of judgment that I have seen in all the time that I've been in public life."

"Where are the people with the flowers, throwing them in the streets, welcoming the American liberators the way Dick Cheney said they would be?" Kerry said in an interview with American Urban Radio Networks.

"Since I fought in Vietnam, I have not seen an arrogance in our foreign policy like this."

Take a breath, Craggy Guy. Dick Cheney did not mention flowers; perhaps the people with flowers are here.

Somewhat more seriously, what is the point of this question about the current deficit of flower-tossers? Is it really the position of the Kerry camp that this uprising reflects the will of the majority of Iraqis? Or, if Rumsfeld and the foreign press are correct in suggesting that the uprising lacks broad popular support, is it a surprise that the silent majority is staying out of the line of fire?

The LA Times covered Kerry's effort on Tuesday in Cinncinnati. Where was the L-U-V?

...when Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, was pressed about what he would do differently than President Bush to resolve the situation in Iraq, he fell back on his long-standing - and not very specific - response: Bring in other countries to help. [Joe Biden is a skeptic]

...Kerry has acknowledged that he will have to scale back some of the programs he proposed during his primary campaign, a change he said is necessary because of a ballooning deficit that he attributes to Bush administration spending.

Actually, they let him off easy on the "scale back because of the deficits" patter - did his team just notice these deficits last week, or was he lying all through primary season?

UPDATE: No soft spot for Kerry at the Times, either:

Battles in Iraq Bring Troubles for Bush and Kerry as Well / Nagourney, Hulse

WASHINGTON, April 7 — The surge of violence in Iraq has created vast political complications for Democrats and Republicans, as President Bush struggled on Wednesday to address doubts about his foreign policy and Senator John Kerry sought to challenge the conduct of a war he voted for two years ago.

They describe his attacks on Bush and follow with:

...Still, even as he attacked Mr. Bush, Mr. Kerry was notably vague in saying how he would handle the matter as president. His advisers said he had no plans to offer a policy speech about a war that aides to Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry alike said they now expected to provide a bloody backdrop for the campaign for months.

"Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made," Mr. Kerry said on Wednesday on CNN.

Mr. Kerry ignored two questions shouted to him by reporters at a meeting he held with economic advisers, about whether he would "take out" Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite clergyman, a pool report said.

And, later in the story (following news about Bush's many troubles):

Mr. Kerry's remarks on the deterioration in Iraq reflect the extent to which he has yet to come up with any proposals to distinguish himself from Mr. Bush about what might be done there now. His national security adviser, Rand Beers, said Mr. Kerry would support an increase in troop strength along the lines that the Pentagon is now advocating.

Calling it like they see it.

Comments

[Mithras]

the silent majority ...

Man, that's a blast from the past. It really is Vietnam all over again, isn't it? If it goes well, it's a triumph for the war party. If it doesn't, well, then America was stabbed in the back by the hippies and fifth columnists at home. Next you'll be posting stories about how young soldiers coming home are getting called baby killers and spit on by Markos Zuniga.

[WillieStyle]

Okay, okay,
I get the "Hate the other guy more than I like my guy" thing, but I really must freakin' insist that unless you think everything's honky dory in Iraq right now, you take a second, choke down the next wrinkled Kerry joke, and actually criticize the #@%$ guys in #^%&* charge of this #%$^ mess.

Or not, whatever.

[Paul Zrimsek]

The Nixon flashbacks don't stop there, Mithras! Here's Ted Kennedy on Larry King Live (via RealClearPolitics):

I think John Kerry has the background, the war experience, somebody that's seen war, understands war, and the foreign policy experience to give us a new opportunity to see this resolved, where we can bring Americans home with honor.

The Silent Majority is only a blogospheric trial balloon at this point... but Peace With Honor has the support of national Democrats at the highest level. Can Nattering Nabobs of Negativism be far behind?

[TM]

Willie, I agree - a couple of posts earlier I did provide Rumsfeld's unique perspective, which I hope did not come across as a wholly uncritical acceptance of the Admin line. (Although that said, I did find Rumsfeld's enthusiasm a bit contagious near the end).

I'm going to come back to thus when I have more time - I am (broadly, but not w.r.t. myself) worried about the point made my Mithras as well.

[WillieStyle]

TM,
Fair enough

[TM]

Well, "silent majority" is emerging - Tom Friedman, "Are There Any Iraqis in Iraq?":

We cannot want a decent Iraq more than the Iraqi silent majority.

"Nattering nabobs" should, per the Faster Failure Thesis Mickey is always touting, emerge this afternoon.

In fact, I may steal that.

OK, my short answer to Willie - yes, I spent most of yesterday looking for a graceful way to evacuate my... oh, never mind. Clearly, Iraq is going badly, and one does wonder whether Team Bush has got this under control (or even has a clue). That said, the last gasp of the dead-enders prior to the June 30 transition has been predicted for a while, so it is possible that we are "on track", Heaven help us all.

Now, my free advice to Kerry sort of segues into my response to Mithras - Kerry cannot be seen as exploiting this. We are going to have bad days in Iraq - if he wants to restate his ongoing concerns, fine, but he can't go all manic-depressive on us based on a couple of grim news cycles. Steady on, John - you might be President yourself one day, and you can't govern if you are constantly perched on a window ledge. (Anyone who has watched a baseball game in the company of a Red Sox fan knows what I am saying here).

And for the Bush side - don't go wrapping yourself in the flag, and pretending that critics are giving aid and comfort to the enemy (no matter how much you believe it). This war has had serious, thoughtful critics from long before it began, many of whom (including Bush 2000) were extremely skeptical of this nation-building exercise. We do need a clear commitment to US success at this point, but your critics are not wholly wrong in wondering whether you are the guy to lead us there. Give us a plan, or a pep talk, but don't go bemoaning the presence of skeptics. (And I don't know if the Admin has, but I see that tone emerging elsewhere.)

An example is provided by Kennedy, although following to the final update is pretty funny.

[IceCold]

Friedman should consider experience in the former-Soviet republics. From personal experience I can confirm that decency-seeking silent majorities in post-totalitarian situations who show passivity, ignorant cynicism, and timidity are the norm. That is our biggest challenge in Iraq, not Iranian or Syrian meddling or AQ infiltration, as important and real as those are.

Kerry's (and Biden's) empty mantra of "internationalizing" the situation is a stunning demonstration of how little they have to offer. It's been chanted for months, and has never made any sense. It's an illogical emphasis on means over ends. The objective in Iraq depends more than anything on willpower and persistence -- not whether these qualities are shown by forces of 101 countries, or one.

It's even worse than that. It's inconceivable that the reaction -- from Iraqi Kurd to Sunni to Shi'a, not to mention that of key players like Iran and Syria, to "internationalizing" and sharing the burden would be anything OTHER than to perceive it as a flinch by the US -- because it would be. That was probably true a year ago, it's certainly the case now.

The performance of the UN in Iraq, not to mention the Spanish, Kazakh, and Japanese and Korean situations, illustrates this point for outsiders, but Iraqis have never had any reason to focus on any party other than the US to make their calculations. The Kerry approach to Iraq is akin to syndicating a bank loan, when in reality the task is more like winning a knife fight in a dark alley with deadly enemies.

There's also the small matter of facts. There are not, contrary to the mostly unspoken assumptions of the "internationalizing" mantra, capable forces ready to lift the burden from our shoulders in Iraq just waiting for sufficiently "humble diplomacy" from the US. For very good operational reasons most of the coalition contingents have hitherto been assigned to mostly quiet areas. The limitations of most NATO militaries relative to our own, the military and political undesirability of trying to simply insert others as substitutes into key areas seeing action like Fallujah, and the underlying lack of political will for the mission in NATO and other countries have nothing to do with US diplomacy, but are the result of long-term trends or local situations. See the current difficulties in standing up even a semi-respectable expeditionary NATO effort in Afghanistan for hints as to the reality.

Kennedy et al are making their own beds and no wrapping of flags by others is required for them to eventually lie there. But the substantive vacuity of the "internationalizing" chant is one that would have long ago been exposed in a country with a skeptical and intelligent media.