Style versus substance
The allies Kerry says he will call to a summit meeting have been unwilling even to provide a United Nations protection force for the upcoming Iraqi elections, despite pleas from the U.N. secretary general, Kofi Annan. Much of Europe would rather appease Islamic terrorism, given their domestic Muslim populations, than fight it. They look to the leadership of a Neville Chamberlain; the Americans look to the leadership of a Winston Churchill.
But if there is no chance that other nations could contribute enough to substantially reduce America's burden, or that we could train Iraqis more rapidly than under the leadership of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, then Kerry's proposals are hollow. To suggest bringing some troops home by next summer is to use the language of multilateralism as a facade for retreat. If the world is to be responsible for defeating the terrorists, no one will be responsible. A fresh start is not necessarily the right start.
Similarly, the United States absolutely needs China and others at the table to pressure North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Only multilateral pressures stand a chance of getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons and stop building more.
Where Bush is vulnerable to Kerry's attacks, though, is on the failure to have a coherent plan for the peace in Iraq after the brilliant military victory there. The administration is adapting, but hell, it is said, is truth seen too late. The Democratic base, which was in despair over Kerry, was reinvigorated by his performance last week. Many undecided voters clearly will have a better feeling about him. As all this is discussed around the kitchen tables and water coolers of America, there is just one certainty: This election is not over--not by a long shot.
advertisement
