Who Edits John Kerry?

We are peering through his WaPo article, "A Strategy for Iraq", and wondering why his editors left early.

We like this:

The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.

In the spirit of bipartisan resolve, I will set aside questions of whether "the extremists attacking our forces" includes Senators Byrd and Kennedy. Instead, I am agog at this next sentence:

But to maximize our chances for success, and to minimize the risk of failure...

What risk of failure? Failure is not an option, dammit! Didn't Kerry just say we are committed to success?

Look, a shorter, more upbeat intro to this paragraph would be a simple "In order to succeed". Enough nuance, already.

Hmm, this bit soundbites nicely, too:

The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.

Shorter - all good things must come from the UN; the US will remain in charge of shooting people. I see the benefit of his nuance there.

MORE: Robert Tagorda reads Kerry's peice and kicks a**; Gregory Djereian takes names. Since I need a bit of spine-stiffening, I'll excerpt this:

...if you care about the future of Iraq, a Bush vote is looking better than a Kerry vote right now--despite all the recent difficulties, despite the fact that Bush didn't put in enough troops early on, despite not having enough constabulatory forces on the ground (including better trainers for nascent Iraqi forces), despite early errors like disbanding the entire Iraqi army.

...Kerry appears more amenable to peddling a chimerical 'solution' of simply handing over the mess to the U.N.--a recipe for disaster.

MORE: This may not be a random sample, but there is a distinctly Kausian level of enthusiasm for Kerry's proposal from Billmon and his commenters on the left. Is this election turning into Dumb v. Dumber?

MORE: Andrew Sullivan likes it! Well, sort of:

Yes, I think John Kerry's faith in the United Nations is misplaced. But I was struck by how grown-up his Washington Post op-ed was yesterday. Can you imagine him saying anything like that during the primary season? It was at least a relief that the Democrats are not going to use Iraq as a political football in the future quite as egregiously as they have so far.

Left unasked - if his own party follows Senators Kennedy and Byrd into demanding peace with honor, come home America, and an early withdrawal, is there anything in his record (I mean, even a hint) that Kerry will defy his own party and attempt to lead it in a different direction?

Comments

[Robert Tagorda]

I asked the same question when I saw his deferral to Lakhdar Brahimi, who comes with significant baggage.

[TexasToast]

We need international help and international "cover". Some how, some way, we need to avoid being painted as a crusader army imposing a government. Kerry's proposal here sounds like the only way to get that and maintain control over security. Are you suggesting we also transfer military authority to the UN?

I thought not.

Lets face it, Bush is not going to get any support internationally. Do we really want to go it alone? Have we heard a better idea from Bush/Cheany?

[bushgirlsgonewild]

Bush/Cheney, et al, need a lesson in humility.

The 'Vulcans' "miscalculated" Iraq ('FUBAR' is a more accurate term), but they won't admit it. They are so full of feelings of moral and intellectual superiority that they don't dare admit they were dead wrong. One senior administration official even had the hubris walnuts to state---a month before the war started---that one of the goals will be to have the new Iraq recognize Israel! If that isn't an indication of how conceited and unrealistic their thinking is, well, then, I just don't know...

[TM]

Bush is not going to get any support internationally

The word "more" must be missing - we have help, starting with the Brits.

NATO and the UN might add at most 20,000 troops (and we could use them), but none of them will actually shoot at anyone.

[Bushsupportincicny]

President Bush's speech here was awesome. Unfortunately most of my teachers don't care. Its to their disadvantage. I'm guessing they want higher taxes and a horrible president. I feel that both sides lie a little BUT the Kerry campaign is lying too much. If they lie in a campaign just think of what they will do in office.