Kerry needs to lead on security

John Kerry needs to lay out a serious plan for exiting Iraq and fighting terror before he gets much further into campaigning for president. If he doesn’t get it right, he doesn’t deserve the job.

I’d like to see George Bush’s plan too while we’re at it, since his current strategy for winning the peace has sprung a few leaks.

So far the foreign policy aspect of this campaign has been largely about the past. There is plenty to examine in the rear-view mirror -- it’s clear that Bush was itching to take on Iraq long before 9/11, which raises legitimate questions about his rush to invade; that the war on Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan languished as he pursued this adventure; and that planning for the post-war administration of the country was ideologically driven and dangerously inadequate.

But while it matters very much how and why we invaded Iraq, nothing can change the fact that we did, and that we are bound to that decision and its consequences. Staying the course in Iraq should be a great liberal cause, no matter how liberals felt about going to war. The United States is obligated to help create a secure and stable Iraq. Doing so will improve our own security, and falling short will make the world more dangerous than it was before we invaded.

Without a compelling vision for Iraq and a comprehensive plan for dealing with terrorism, Kerry lacks the credibility to talk about all the ways he might be preferable to Bush. National security is the ineluctable issue of the 2004 election, and what happens going forward is the big question. If Kerry has a serious posture on security he can take the fight to Bush, aiming at the incumbent’s perceived strength as a terror-fighter as well as his palpable weaknesses on domestic affairs.

With a plan, Kerry’s Vietnam-era status as both a hero and a critic of a war Bush avoided stands out as a mark of character. Without a plan, it’s just lines on his resume. With a plan, Kerry can talk about the enormous Bush deficits, the tax breaks for the rich, the deliberate deception about the costs of the corporate-welfare Medicare plan, the retrograde environmental policy, and the divisive, dangerous culture wars. Without a plan, those issues are moot to many voters.

So far Kerry has said good things about regaining international support and increasing troop strength. “We need a President who will not walk away from a dangerous world - and a President who will not walk alone by choice – but a President who will lead a new alliance of free nations…to address the common ills of a new century – terrorism, loose nukes, and drug trafficking, environmental destruction and epidemic disease,” he said in one campaign speech (available at his website, www.JohnKerry.com).

But it’s not enough for Kerry to allude to his support from foreign leaders, and promise to mend the relationships trashed by Bush. It’s not enough to count on mistakes by the terrorists, who may have woken Europe up to its peril by attacking Spain, which subsequently increased its commitment of troops to Afghanistan. Kerry needs to tell us how he will work with the rest of the civilized world to get the job done.  

I want to hear more about his larger worldview, and his broad plan for the post-war era. What does the map look like two years from now, and five years, and ten? What will he do to get us there? Part of the logic of invading Iraq was to send a message to other countries that this is what happens to states that might support terrorists. How will Kerry leverage our position in Iraq to reinforce this message to governments of countries like Iran and Syria, not to mention our good friends in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?  

What will he do to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which continues to spark anti-American sentiment in Islamic countries? Can he avoid the pattern of supporting the enemies of our enemies, who then turn around and bite us, as happened with both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden?

A simply-stated, direct, and credible policy on Iraq and the war on terror would establish Kerry as a viable alternative to Bush. Without one, the race might as well be over already.