This snide and reckless put-down more than undermines our best friends abroad. It demonstrates the cynicism of Kerry’s promise to broaden our coalition in Iraq. If this is how Kerry repays America’s closest allies — ridiculing the likes of Tony Blair and John Howard — who does he think is going to step up tomorrow to be America’s friend?
The only thing that distinguishes Kerry’s Iraq proposals from Bush’s is his promise to deploy his unique, near-mystical ability to bring in new allies to fight and pay for the war in Iraq — to “make Iraq the world’s responsibility” and get others to “share the burden,” as he said this week at New York University.
Yet even Richard Holbrooke, a top Kerry foreign policy adviser, admits that the president of France is not going to call up President Kerry and say, “How many divisions should I send to Iraq?”
As Mark Steyn puts it, Kerry’s looking for American failure — and he’s it
What a small, graceless man Kerry is. The nature of adversarial politics in a democratic society makes George W. Bush his opponent. But it was entirely Kerry’s choice to expand the field, to put himself on the other side of Allawi and the Iraqi people. Given his frequent boasts that he knows how to reach out to America’s allies, it’s remarkable how often he feels the need to insult them: Britain, Australia, and now free Iraq. But, because this pampered cipher has floundered for 18 months to find any rationale for his candidacy other than his indestructible belief in his own indispensability, Kerry finds himself a month before the election with no platform to run on other than American defeat. He has decided to co-opt the jihadist death-cult, the Baathist dead-enders, the suicide bombers and other misfits and run as the candidate of American failure. This would be shameful if he weren’t so laughably inept at it
The Kerry campaign’s disgraceful comments (echoed in Le Monde, via ¡No Pasarán!) about Mr. Allawi gave cause for Mr. Allawi to rebuke him in Congress. Of course, Mr. Kerry, whose attendance record in the Senate hasn’t been all that good, wasn’t there to listen (he was in Ohio, I believe). The Rocky Mountain News hears No soft talk for Heinz Kerry, either.
Through all this, Andrew McCarthy explains a few things about the war
Simply stated, this war is not a struggle to create stable democracies that, secondarily, might themselves keep our enemies at bay. It is a war to root out and destroy militant Islam, to vindicate the highest purpose of government: American national security. We should prosecute this war with the expectation that the accomplishment of our primary goal will produce conditions that make stability and, hopefully, democracy plausible — if the indigenes are willing to do the hard work needed to make that happen. We are not, however, guarantors of their future; it is our own future that has caused our paths to cross
Belmont Club analyzes that
Without the infrastrastructure of a state sponsor, terrorism is limited to cells of about 100 members in size in order to maintain security. In the context of the current campaign in Iraq, the strategic importance of places like Falluja or “holy places” is that their enclave nature allows terrorists to grow out their networks to a larger and more potent size. Without those sanctuaries, they would be small, clandestine hunted bands. The argument that dismantling terrorist enclaves makes “America less safe than it should be in a dangerous world” inverts the logic. It is allowing the growth of terrorist enclaves that puts everyone at risk in an otherwise safe world.