The Presidential Debate, A Few Days Later
I decided to let a few days pass before adding my 2 cents about the first Presidential debate last Thursday evening. I wanted some time to reflect on the parts of it that would be of lasting significance.
My main reaction as I watched it live was to feel sympathy for President Bush, since he seemed to be so off his game. There is no doubt, even after watching the debate a second time, that Kerry scored a clear victory on style--appearing composed, articulating answers clearly, standing up straight, etc. Anyone who has seen the two of them speak before would expect Kerry to win on debating style. What was surprising was how wide the margin of victory was in this respect.
On the substance of the debate, and evaluating it as a debate, I can point to a few issues that Bush won and suggest that the rest went to Kerry (even though Kerry did little to convince me that he would improve the situation in Iraq). Surprisingly, Kerry allowed himself to lose ground on the North Korea and Iran questions. North Korea has to be dealt with through the multilateral talks first. Giving North Korea the option of simultaneously engaging in bilateral talks allows it to decide which forum it will favor on some issues. Since these negotiations are voluntary, that option has value. There is no reason to strengthen North Korea's bargaining position in this manner. And Kerry's responding to an either-or question with "both" gives a mild rhetorical victory to those who say he cannot make up his mind. On Iran, the President successfully deflected Kerry's accusations of having willfully mishandled the situation.
I thought that Kerry fared better than Bush on the Iraq questions, even though the President was able to (finally) call Kerry out on the way he has referred to the action as unilateral despite the presence of allies like the UK, Australia, and Poland. Bush failed to effectively rebut the argument that the situation in Iraq is spiraling out of control. He failed to appear composed enough to assert credibly that his war strategy would prevail.
He also missed two critical opportunities to go on the offensive against Kerry. First, he should have demanded that Kerry renounce the statements made by his campaign official, Joe Lockhart, that Allawi is a puppet of the United States. Regardless of whether Kerry thinks that is true, it is clearly contrary to the interest of the United States for Allawi to lose credibility in his country and region. The article linked above shows how the President has done this on the campaign trail.
Second, Bush should have reiterated more plainly that he faced a difficult choice and followed what he perceived to be the right course of action. He has done this fairly eloquently many times (in the part of his standard Iraq speech where he describes Saddam as a madman). He should also have listed some of the countries that we tried unsuccessfully to bring on board and explained why the price they demanded was too high to pay. I think most people would have understood him. May I suggest a re-reading of Charles Krauthammer's Irving Kristol lecture, "Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World," which is the clearest rationale for the war in Iraq and the choice to "go it alone" that I have heard to date. (It was written before the insurgency gained as much traction as it currently has, and so it does not deal with problems in the conduct of the Iraq war.)
On the day the United States began military action in Afghanistan, the President closed his address to the Nation with the words, "The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." At the President's choosing, Iraq is the next front in the War on Terror. The recent setbacks on the ground in Iraq suggest a waver. And on Thursday, the President himself appeared tired and he clearly faltered. For the sake of the United States and people seeking peace and freedom around the globe, let's hope that we and our allies do not fail in our efforts to establish a democracy in Iraq.
4 comments:
It-s a long time that I have read a piece with the name of Krauthammer on top, I found it-s not worth the time. Now I reread the piece you recommend for study and here we go again. It-s not worth the time. It-s hubristic bragging.
The US went to Europe to defeat the nazistates and to Japan to defeat that imperialistic military state, both of whom had declared war on the US.
Then the US wanted to be sure that there would be no more attacks from these states, so it occupied them and eventually transformed in democracies. A wise decision and a good investment.
Now I would like to hear from you or from Mr. Krauthammer what this has got to do with the attack on Iraq.
There's no reason to strengthen North Korea's hand???
Please! Posturing and dramatics? Give me a break. When will we have grown-ups in charge of diplomacy?
We want to give the North Koreans various economic goodies and various guarantees. We need to know what those are, and we need to know that it is in our interest to give them, and be quick about it. Parallel two-party and six-party talks just make it easier for the U.S. to make those concessions, in ways that don't upset China and Russia, who would prefer North Korea remain dependent on them. In six-party talks, alone, China and Russia would never allow the U.S. to make the concessions necessary to draw North Korea into a sensible position.
Bush appears to think he needs a nuclear-armed North Korea, to justify his insane Missile Shield. As long as the Administration has that stance, the whole process is headed in an insanely wrong direction. Of course, if you actively want a nuclear North Korea, avoid two-party talks, by all means.
Kerry’s North Korea policy is the same as Clinton’s and Carters. We all know what a big success that was. That policy results from Kerry, Clinton and Carter having no judgment or common sense.
Clinton/Carter’s agreement with North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons program or face sanctions never worked because only the US and North Korea were parties to that agreement.
North Korea’ s economy is in a desperate state. The country is very close to imploding. North Korea blackmailed the nations around them by threatening invasion or destruction of their cities. In response to this blackmail, NK received materials, money and supplies to keep their economy and weapons program running.
If we take blackmail away from them they will be forced to drop their weapon’s program or cease to exist.
Bush’s brilliant policy does just that. He wants the 6 nations to stand as one in negotiating with NK. That way no nation will submit to NK’s blackmail. NK will be forced to drop their nuclear weapons.
Bush has also convinced China to stop giving Korea military and economic aid. NK is wishing for the good old Clinton/Carter days where NK could do anything they want. NK sees in Kerry a man they can manipulate. They know they can not manipulate Bush.
Apparently Anonymous #1 read a different article than I did. Whether or not he was bragging or not (some people call it articulating a new philosophy), he clearly and succintly lays out the different intellectual frameworks for addressing the world. Regardless of which one you prefer, the article is informative and to the point, making stupid comments about the author just because he has his own preference is intellectually vacuous.
Regarding the same post, he/she asks what does installing democracy in Iraq have to do w/ Germany, Japan. In my mind, for the exact same reasons. He/she doesn't come out and say it, but I can assume that like many people today, they did not view Hussein as a risk to our long-term security (or at least they don't now, now that he's conveniently gone and there's an election). The continue to point to the fact that he had now WMD, therefore he was not a threat. The main difference between those opposed to the war and those for it, is that those for it couldn't care less if there were WMD or not. The point is that as he had attempted many times in the past, had used them against many peoples, including his own, and was doing as much as possible to flaunt sanctions. There would be no time in the future, as long as he was around, that he wouldn't be doing as much as he could to get them. To argue that we could leave sanctions on him and continue monitoring him and be successful is a possibility, and what the debate on this war should have been about. I may be wrong, but I don't remember Kerry bringing it up before the war, and I don't hear him talking about it now. It just seems like the U.N. is not capable of something that important. Both sides of that argument are potentially reasonable and worthy of debate.
Regarding N Korea, I'm not sure I care about the 6 party/ bilateral talk debate. Who cares? The facts are Clinton and Carter went there in the early 90's, signed some stupid agreement, and declared to the world that N Korea had given up there program for nuclear weapons. We all know now that N Korea didn't even stop. How the liberal interventionists can not see this as an utter failure is beyond me. As the article mentions, despots do not respond to moral suasion. (Somebody please put Carter in a rest home). What is obvious is that N Korea's neighbors are and should be more concerned than us, not that we shouldn't be, but they have the most to lose. One point I've read that was of interest, is that the neighbors are letting the regime in N Korea die a slow death. Antagonizing a dying regime w/ possibly nuclear weapons is not necessarily a good thing to do, maybe those neighbors know what they are doing.
Post a Comment