# Posted 10:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

I VOTED FOR KERRY BEFORE I VOTED AGAINST HIM: As Sanjay anticipated, it may be about time for a mea culpa. On Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, I endorsed John Kerry, albeit it with a very long list of reservations.

If any of you Bush-supporters are looking to say "I told you so", you will find plenty of good material in my post. It's almost as if everything Kerry said this past Sunday on NBC was designed to show just how little I understood the candidate I was voting for. For example, I wrote:

In contrast to Dan [Drezner] & Greg [Djerejian], my most profound concern about Kerry is his naivete with regard to multilateral diplomacy. Rather, it is his total resistance to making about any positive statement about the importance of ensuring a democratic outcome in Iraq. [Emphasis in the original]

Well, at least I didn't persuade myself that Kerry really cared about democracy in Iraq. In fact, I asked whether:

If I expect the Kerry administration to be more competent [than the Bush administration], shouldn't I expect it to be more competent at achieving precisely the objective I opppose, i.e. the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq before there is a democratic order in place?

My answer to that question is 'no'. Ironically, I believe that it is Bush's uncompromising commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq and throughout the Middle East that will tie Kerry's hands.

In a more abstract sense, I also believe that the values embedded in American political culture will limit Kerry's options. When America occupies a foreign nation, it cannot withdraw before establishing some semblance of a democratic order.

And here is where we enter the realm of speculation and counterfactuals. Would Kerry as president be different from the Kerry who said all those absurd things this past Sunday?

Perhaps. But the same critics who blasted Kerry for all of his flip-flopping should recognize that such a malleable individual might behave very differently with the weight of the presidency on his shoulders than he does now as a senator from the bluest of the blue states. On the other hand, winning the presidency might have liberated Kerry from the moderation he imposed on himself throughout the campaign, allowing his true liberal self to emerge.

Bottom line, there is no question that I have egg on my face. How could I endorse a candidate whose values are so diametrically opposed to my own?

On top of that, one has to recall that Iraq hadn't yet held a single election in November 2004. Only the most naive optimists would've expected at the time that Iraq would've held three successful elections, with the Sunnis participating in ever greater numbers and terrorist attacks going down.

That would seem to be proof of how wrong it was to endorse Kerry because of his presumed competence and in spite of my principles. And yet, the American public has become more and more disenchanted with the war in Iraq since the 2004 election.

I don't blame them. Our political culture values decisive military victories. Counterinsurgency wars provide none. The constant chaos and terrorism create an impression of political failure in spite of the success of the elections. And the one-by-one deaths of American soldiers hurt more than anything else precisely because there is no hope for a decisive victory on the battlefield.

As a student of democracy promotion and counterinsurency, I see things very differently. I see great failures of planning in Iraq, but also the outline of a successful strategy.

I also know that my judgment of the situation is profoundly influenced by my desire to see freedom take root in the Middle East. And there comes a time when you have trust your values, because the facts on the ground do not speak for themselves. (18) opinions -- Add your opinion