# Posted 11:44 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

KERRY AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF: It seems that Kevin Drum is the only one talking about the speech on national security that Kerry gave last Friday at UCLA. While Kerry's decisive victory over Edwards is obviously the bigger story, I hope that this speech gets some more attention, because I think it says a lot about how the national security issue will play out over the next six months.

Now, Kevin hits the nail on the head when identifies Kerry's proposal to add 40,000 soldiers to the US military as the headline news in Kerry's speech. As Kevin points out, Bush can't match the proposal without vindicating those critics who insist that we simply don't have enough boots on the ground in Iraq. Thus, Kerry now has a major issue on which he can credibly present himself as more hawkish than Bush.

The subheadline of Kerry's speech is his insistence that the United States has a "solemn obligation" to finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq. As the Senator explains,

Whatever we thought of the Bush Administration's decisions and mistakes -- especially in Iraq -- we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price everyday.

And our safety at home may someday soon be endangered as Iraq becomes a training ground for the next generation of terrorists.

Kerry's vague comments about the administration's "decision and mistakes" indicate that he isn't confident enough to directly attack the administration for its conduct of a war that Kerry himself voted to authorize. In fact, I was generally suprised by the restraint Kerry showed in criticizing the President's record on foreign policy. Perhaps it is not a matter of choice. On a lot of security issues, it is all but impossible for Kerry to attack the President without falling into the stereotype of a Massachusetts liberal. In contrast, Kerry had no qualms about using far more punishing language to attack Howard Dean's foreign policy in December than he is using to attack Bush's now. While Josh Marshall may love Kerry for being a fighter, it already seems that he is giving ground on the most important issue in the election.

The one point Kerry tries to hammer on relentlessly is Bush's disrespect for our allies. Yet when Kerry says that "As President, [he] will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake," he is again giving away the middle ground to Bush. Yes, one can argue that since there were no WMD in Iraq Bush was wrong to go to war without the Security Council. But Kerry can't say that without raising the question of why he voted for the war in the Senate.

Getting back to Kerry's talk of a "solemn obligation" in Iraq, I think it is important to point out that Kerry portrays the situation in Iraq as nothing more than a burden for the United States. As he strongly implies, the situation we now face in Iraq is a product of President Bush's "decisions and mistakes". In contrast, President Bush tends to portray the situation in Iraq as being a historic opportunity as well as a heavy responsibility. It marks the beginning of the democratic transformation of the Middle East. Such language, however, is entirely absent from Kerry's speech. To some degree, that is just partisan politics. Bush wants to spin the occupation as a historic event while Kerry wants to use it against the President. Now that Bush has unveiled his Greater Middle East Initiative, Kerry doesn't want to validate it by talking about the importance of democracy promotion. Yet if the promoting democracy weren't so important, why do we have a solemn obligation to ensure its success in Iraq? While this kind of subtle coloration of Kerry's words probably won't matter to much of the electorate, it does indicate to me that President Bush may have a better instinctive grasp than John Kerry does of what's at stake in Iraq.

On a similar note, I have to admit that I am disturbed by Kerry's statement that

It is time to return to the United Nations and return America to the community of nations to share both authority and responsibility in Iraq, and take the target off the back of our troops...

We must offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions.

Does Kerry really believe that any other nation will provide enough troops to take American soldiers out of the line of fire? The best we can hope for is a token force from France and Germany that will add some legitimacy to the occupation. Then again, no one in Iraq seems to be complaining that the occupation is too American. After all, the insurgents even kill UN employees. What I want to know is, when would Kerry offer the UN "the lead role" -- not a lead role, but the lead role -- in the definition of Iraq's political future? Before or after it puts enough blue helmets on the ground to give our troops a rest? While the American public respects the UN, I don't think that giving it a quid without getting a pro quo is likely to create the impression that Kerry is serious about national security.

There is no question that Kerry's speech was a good one. If you take a closer look, its strengths become more apparent. But there are still strong indications of how divided Kerry is about whether to attack Bush's foreign policy from the left or from the right. Perhaps the answer is both. Yet by trying to have it all, Kerry may only reinforce the notion that he doesn't have a real position on the issue.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion