How Kerry Wins the War Debate – PLEASE READ THIS KERRY STRATEGISTS

[wadestock]

Background: Kerry is losing in 3 crucial issue areas which relate to the Iraq War and/or terrorism:

1. Iraq War – how the decision was made, whether it was right, and “are we safer now after elimination of Saddam from the world. Kerry has been unable to make a significant case against the war (and this is old news now anyway) because he voted for the war and/or he feels this would damage his election hopes. People are completely confused about what Kerry would do in Iraq and generally give the nod to Bush, even though the war is a complete catastrophe.

2. “Who would be best to deal with terrorism” – Bush has been given a general good mark since we haven’t had terrorist attacks since 911. People are generally confused that “it is better to fight them over there” than it is to fight them “over here”. I have dealt with this issue in a separate post.

3. “Who would be the one to make us safer” – Related to the above, but a growing sense among people that Bush will “take the fight to them”...whereas Kerry and the wimpy Dems may not have the guts to take them head on. I mention this as a separate topic because it is included as a separate question in many polls and because of “Zell’s Hell” at the convention, we now have an increased problem in terms of Dems being viewed as weak on defense. Even though this issue is tough, I feel most of it is countered by my post which explained how to counter the “we’re better of fighting them over there than here” logic. (If you haven’t read the post, the logic is simply that the lesson of 911 is that a dozen or so people can wreak havoc, and that fighting nations doesn’t address this inherent threat).

Basic New Approach to the War Issue:
Kerry must generally drop current approach and start with a completely fresh new approach. The recommended approach consists of these crucial elements:

1. Bush was not honest with the American people regarding the need for “regime change” and what appeared to be a rather harmless initiative to liberate the Iraqi people. In reality, the plan was to set up a military base and project US presence into the region. As a backdrop, Kerry must be keen to point out that yes....Saddam was completely contained and that he was of no real threat to the US. The deviation is this….that Bush is in fact not only up to “regime change” (for the supposed purpose of weeding out terrorists), but for the dedicated purpose to OCCUPY IRAQ AND PROJECT US FORCE THROUGOUT THE REGION.

2. In support of the above, Kerry will argue vehemently that if “regime change” was the REAL intent, why would the entire Iraqi Army be obliterated to the extent that absolutely nothing remained? This recipe mandated US long term presence, thus the need for a military base in the area. Kerry must be keen to point out that what was sold to the people as a rather simple “regime change” is quite simply inherently a can of worms in terms of mandating total military occupation and long term presence. Is the public supposed to forgive Bush for an error in judgment in terms of thinking that the Iraqi people would suddenly democratize or else that long term US military occupation was not really required?


3. The REAL intent was the projection of US force into the area coupled with the LONG TERM AMBITION (based on a dream) that the seeds of democracy could be planted in Iraq, and that this would then SPREAD THROUGH THE REGION and cause a “new order of peace”. Bush was not honest with the American people that this was the REAL intent, and that a long term commitment to accomplish this goal was “BUILT IN” to the war effort. Would the American people have supported such a bold long term strategy and would Congress have voted to initiate a war effort to effect this bold new strategy to remodel the Middle East?

4. Kerry must then SPECIFICALLY shows the difference between his view of the Iraq War and what Bushco’s long term objectives are. This is the crucial difference that people must suddenly realize. Kerry will specifically announce that he is NOT for EXTENDED LONG TERM military presence in the region as part of a long term US plan to attempt to democratize the entire Arab world. Is this really the recipe for peace in the area? (question must be directed to Mr. Bush during the debates)….or will building sound alliances between nations REALLY be the recipe for peace. This is a key statement that he will decisively take OWNERSHIP of. Bush of course will deny this and attempt to say that all he wanted to do was liberate the Iraqi people and that the world is better off without Saddam, and that the only way to fight the “global war on terror” is to make such initiates. But Kerry will have easy pickings in such a debate. The facts are clear that Bushco has sought to “reshape” the region, and Kerry must stick it to Bush over and over on the issue that he has “taken for granted” the American people and their will to go along with a long term plan to reshape the region.

5. Kerry will bash Bush over and over again on the issue of the US being LONG TERM occupiers. Kerry must say....

”let there be no mistake about it...everyone knows...regardless of how the president attempts to sell the notion that we are only casual bystanders in Iraq’s supposed experiment with democracy...that we are in fact long term occupiers….with specific intent to extent US military presence not only in Iraq but throughout the region”.

Bush of course will deny this. But Kerry will counter point that occupation is mandated by the fact that the entire Iraqi army was destroyed and that any short term flowering democracy in Iraq (especially sufficient to maintain itself) is an irresponsible dream. Kerry will point out that Bush’s point has been made very clear in a number of statements....ie. DEMOCRACY in Iraq. But what if the people do not embrace democracy? Does the US become an unwanted long term military presence? This IS the ultimate definition of a quagmire.

6. How does Kerry solve the problem? He specifically tells the world that US military presence will ONLY be offered to safeguard Iraqi peace during reconstruction. He will also specifically announce that it is not the US’s long term goal to ensure a “US like” democracy. He will also announce to the world that he will cut off at its knees instantly any plans that this administration may have had to use US presence in the area to intimidate or else reshape the area.

Bottom line – The public will get a new sense that Bushco duped the public with fairy tales about liberating Iraq when the real mission of their so called “global war on terror” was to restructure the Middle East.

Step one was complete annihilation of the Iraqi Army mandating US continued military presence.

Step 2 was to build a nearby Army Base from which we could “monitor the progress of democracy”.

Step 3 was the long term plan that US MILITARY presence in the region and pressure on others would be part of an emerging “new order” of the region, which is all inspired by constant US military presence.

The above focus allows Kerry to RISE ABOVE the war issue, and not have to deal with sideshows such as “did he vote for and then against the war”, or whether he is generally for the war or not. Kerry must specifically say during the debate….”it is now time for us all to SOBERLY consider what this administration was really attempting to accomplish….and how we as a nation must deal with the situation and discontinue any notion that US military presence and threat will somehow bring an end to terrorism or else reshape the region so that it looks and operates like the United States.

He must bring this maturity to the debates so that the American people start to think in real terms what Bushco. specifically sought out to do, and exactly what their long term ambitions are.

[Kierkegaard]

1. Nice sentiment, but it probably won't be very effective.

The allegations are easily brushed aside. There is no proof of the administration's intentions to remain an occupying force in the middle east. Routing Saddam's army and/or building military bases just isn't enough. That would be a very risky supposition in light of the fact that people's understanding of the issues is reduced to sound bites and single syllable sentences. Worse, it's just complicated enough to use against us in that the Pugs will spin it as another 'nuance.'

[wadestock]

2. Then we lose.....and Bush wins

The concept of RISING to a new level will finally expose Kerry's true intelligence in foreign policy.

He has said all this...but not in an elegant way....and what's the real problem is he HASN'T DEFINED how he is different than Bush.

This provides the definition....ie.....he WILL commit US troops....BUT NOT FOR LONG TERM US MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE REGION.

BUSHCO has clearly articulated their being infatuated with this presence and pressure...so much so that they have oogled over what happened with Libya.

This is the way to define Kerry's policy for Iraq....and especially how to expose Bush for ambitions clearly beyond Iraq and how they are a danger to you and me in the long term.

[Kierkegaard]

3. Hogwash

First, this isn't the only issue at hand.

Second, I haven't heard *Liar explain anything about his exit strategy. Kerry has been very clear on winding down operations in Iraq and bringing the boys home within his first term. Rumdum continues to spout 'it will take as long as it takes' bullshit. That is a very clear difference that is easy to reduce to a digestible form. The difference is there and it is being proposed to our advantage.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=578182§ion=news

[wadestock]

4. This may be clear to you....but not the average person

The average person has embellished it this way....

1. Taking the fight to them is better than fighting them here.

2. Although a can of worms, we haven't had terrorist attacks since 911.

3. Kerry has waffled and/or is unclear in terms of how he differs with Bush on the war. They probably believe it is not probable that Kerry will make much of a difference because as Bush and confounding logic points out...."we're in it for the long haul"....aka global war on terror.

Kerry has flubbed this for obvious reasons....fear of losing....fear of being associated once again as being the poster boy of the anti-war movement.

But Kerry hasn't thought it through to the extent THAT HE CAN ARTICULATE A CLEAR POLICY FOR IRAQ FOR THE FUTURE.

This is where YOU have not thought it through either. Without this decisive difference in POLICY...which always must show its effect into the future....which people can understand....you have a net negative for Kerry....as clearly evidenced by the polls now.

The other day on TV...they had a number of people simply laughing at Kerry with his supposed plan to bring other nations into the Iraq war effort or reconstruction. As the one guy put it...."like as if Kerry expects us to believe that France will suddenly start sending troops to Iraq just because we start talking nice to them."

Kerry has flubbed this. Plain and simple. He continues to dwell on where Bush went wrong....and people don't want to hear that.
THEY WANT TO KNOW HOW IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE FUTURE....AND IN SOME PLAUSIBLE TERMS.

Let's face it....WE AS A NATION haven't thought it through....so I'm not just picking on you. We are in the grips of some serious military industrial complex bullcrap here....all riding the waves of a bullcrap "global war on terror".....and we have to someone understand this in the context of what happened in Iraq.

Iraq was not an "intelligence failure"....and that was pretty much put to rest with the 911 commission and Bush's half-hearted endorcement of some of the suggestions. No gains there.
Nobody even cares anymore about the issue of not finding WMD. As hard as that is to believe...there's no gains there either.
Exit strategy....hell people have basically bought into the idea that the war is F'd up and we'll be there for the long haul.

No....let's get down to what these people REALLY ARE. Iraq was viewed by Bushco as "doable".....and furthermore....which is my point....A WAY INTO THE REGION. They have extremely demented long-term regional ambitions.

Here's where the real distinction arises and I'm not just making this up. This is the core difference between who WE ARE and who THEY ARE. Can you possibly envision the Dems/Kerry pushing for such things as using force to get other countries to "buckle under"??? No...these guys have the corner on that market.

Let's bring the differences out of the shadows and into plausible terms here. If Kerry has any real brains he'll bring this clear policy distinction and its implications for the future into the minds of the average voter...then you have something.

These people aren't loyalists, flag wavers, and defenders of the peace....this is a matter of debunking and exposing Bushco/neoconservative/world order ideals for what they are.

This is a reasonable and practical way of exposing them for what they are - MADMEN.

[Cartooner]

5. STRATEGY ... from (evidently) a MINORITY VIEW

Well... I'VE THOUGHT IT THROUGH...

IF KERRY STARTS A DRUM BEAT THAT THIS IRAQ WAR IS "GEORGE W. BUSH'S VIET NAM" and he has NO EXIT STRATEGY (therein lies the similarity); burgeoning combat fatalities, injuries and maimings ... NO END IN SIGHT.

IF KERRY SAYS IT OVER AND OVER ... AND SAYS "I KNOW HOW TO END A VIET NAM TYPE WAR!!! I advocated an end to the first one, and I KNOW HOW TO END THIS ONE ... AND HERE'S WHAT I'D DO:

"When I'm elected, I'll set a date certain (say 6 MONTHS from now) WHEN WE'LL EXIT. Yes, it's possible IRAQ won't be able to manage the insurgency on their own then. Yes, the country may fall into civil war. Yes, a theocracy might result. Yes, Bush's grandiose concept of a Christian Democracy ISN'T LIKELY.

"BUT ... it's A WRONG WAR at the WRONG PLACE at the WRONG TIME. WE GOT RID OF YOUR TYRANT. MOST OF YOU DON'T WANT US THERE ... (after all we ARE OCCUPIERS). And you have 6 (THAT'S SIX) MONTHS TO FIGURE IT OUT."

If he'd campaign on this, I bet it would catch on. WHY?
1. IT'S NOT BUSH'S PLAN
2. IT GETS US OUT
3. THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THIS HORRIBLE TUNNEL AT LAST ...

[HFishbine]

6. Well thought out. I agree.

Great post!

[democrat_patriot]

7. Only effective in a 10-15 second sound bite.

That's all the air time Kerry gets. It's going to be difficult - hopefully the debates can help him clear it up.