Clarity for Kerry

My wife and the Minister of Propaganda almost did me in last month.

My crime?

Thinking about voting for Bush.

Please don’t think that I, in any way, support Bush’s domestic policies. I disagree with his administration almost entirely across the board.

But I wasn’t that inspired by Kerry’s vague platitudes. Additionally, I can’t foresee a circumstance in which the Democrats could regain control of either house of Congress, so Kerry wouldn’t be able to significantly challenge the prevailing domestic agenda.

The President has much more discretion in foreign affairs. And I thought Kerry would be a disaster.

I’d rather pluck out my own eyes with a shrimp fork than give France a veto over American foreign policy. I believe the U.N. can occasionally be a useful tool, but have no illusions about its democratic legitimacy. And Kerry’s evasiveness about his plan for Iraq, together with his wink-wink-nudge-nudge asides to the Howie Dean pacifist crowd alarmed me.

So I was going to reluctantly pull the level for George.

But then two experiences gave me a moment of clarity.

I read a blogger entry that was attacking Kerry for campaigning against unilateralism. I don’t remember which blog it was so can provide no link. But the gist of it was that Kerry was smart enough to know that winning was the only option and that he was just being disingenuous when he played to the “pro-U.N.” and pacifist crowds.

While I wish our politicians were more honest about their positions, this attack on Kerry’s character made me realize that Kerry’s election would not be a foreign affairs disaster.

The other lightning bolt came from watching CNN. I caught part of a Rumsfeld news conference. The SecDef was explaining to a reporter that “no one could have predicted the insurgency…”

What!?

What the Fuck!?

Many, many people predicted the insurgency.

My blogger colleagues will remember that I supported the morality of the war to save the Kurds AND believed that we had to eliminate the long-term threat the Hussein posed to our national interest. My one reservation was the fear that the Bush team would fight the war on the cheap and fail to win the peace. I should have placed more weight on that reservation, because it has come to pass. Our failure to go in with enough force or to plan for the occupation has cost us dearly. And the Bush team can’t see, or won’t see why this is a problem.

Months ago, Rumsfeld himself had gotten into a public pissing match with the Chief of Staff over troop numbers. The Chief of Staff has said that more men were needed to prevent the growth of an insurgency. Rumsfeld overruled him, discounting the dangers ahead. And this same son of a bitch now has the temerity to claim that “no one could have predicted the insurgency!?”

I suddenly realized:

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are so driven by ideology that they are unable to modify policy to match reality. While this is obnoxious on the domestic side of the slate (the ideological partisanship of the “Mayberry Machiavellis” has been amply demonstrated by former players in the administration), it is dangerous and immoral on the international front. If a group of people who are psychologically incapable of questioning their tactics lead us into an unwinnable war (and we can’t win this war on the cheap – you need more troops to fight a guerilla insurgency than you do a traditional enemy – you have to guard huge numbers of soft targets) and can’t change their tactics, they need to be removed.

I have no problem with using lethal force to advance our national interest and, while saddened by their sacrifice, understand that the blood of our boys may need to be spilt. But I can only accept these things IF a positive outcome is achievable. Without the possibility of a positive outcome, killing foreigners and sacrificing Americans is IMMORAL.

Bush and his boys don’t have the intellectual flexibility to find a positive outcome. They MUST be replaced.