What would Kerry have done?
It seems clear, as U.S. Marines prepare for a likely invasion of Fallujah, that the time has come to cut out a festering cancer that is threatening the life and breath of a nascent democracy in Iraq.
The U.S. had a chance to take care of the problem last April, of course, but for many reasons we hesitated and decided against it. One reason was that we wanted to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. Another that we wanted Iraqi forces to have a major role in the assault, so victory would end in something less like an occupation. Iraqi forces were not ready at the time, but could be ready for a part in an invasion now.
The decision to not take Fallujah in April has been criticized by many hawks as emboldening the militants, and giving them a propaganda vehicle whereby they could claim they drove out "the infidel." One such critic, in hindsight, was John Kerry. No, he did not advocate an invasion at the time, but he has since pointed to it as a failure of the Bush administration to let this situation continue unchecked.
So how would Mr. Kerry, as President-elect, have reacted to today's news, that Kofi Annan has condemned a possible U.S./U.K. invasion, saying that it risks alienating the Iraqi people and jeopardizing elections? Would Kerry have advocated the invasion in the first place, and if so, would he have bucked the U.N. that he so desperately wanted to wrap his arms around, before even taking office?
We know that if our military minds decide that storming Fallujah is the right thing to do, we can rest easy that President Bush will proceed regardless of Annan's protests. No one can be sure of what Mr. Kerry would have done, and that is in no small part why after Tuesday, he is not the man faced with making those decisions.
The U.S. had a chance to take care of the problem last April, of course, but for many reasons we hesitated and decided against it. One reason was that we wanted to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. Another that we wanted Iraqi forces to have a major role in the assault, so victory would end in something less like an occupation. Iraqi forces were not ready at the time, but could be ready for a part in an invasion now.
The decision to not take Fallujah in April has been criticized by many hawks as emboldening the militants, and giving them a propaganda vehicle whereby they could claim they drove out "the infidel." One such critic, in hindsight, was John Kerry. No, he did not advocate an invasion at the time, but he has since pointed to it as a failure of the Bush administration to let this situation continue unchecked.
So how would Mr. Kerry, as President-elect, have reacted to today's news, that Kofi Annan has condemned a possible U.S./U.K. invasion, saying that it risks alienating the Iraqi people and jeopardizing elections? Would Kerry have advocated the invasion in the first place, and if so, would he have bucked the U.N. that he so desperately wanted to wrap his arms around, before even taking office?
We know that if our military minds decide that storming Fallujah is the right thing to do, we can rest easy that President Bush will proceed regardless of Annan's protests. No one can be sure of what Mr. Kerry would have done, and that is in no small part why after Tuesday, he is not the man faced with making those decisions.
Comments