On the wings of a dove

I've suspected as much, and last night's debate proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt: John Kerry is a pacifist. He can't come out and admit it, obviously, but he tossed enough crumbs to his fellow peaceniks during the debate to make it clear. For instance...

I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them [Iran], see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes.

Only a pacifist would seriously consider fascists and pseudo-Muslim dictators to be deserving of a presumption of innocence. Foreign leaders who do not believe in basic human rights for their people or a democratic form of government must be treated differently than those who do. A good place to draw the line is not to give these demonstrably untrustworthy characters nuclear components. Honestly, it amazes me that a Presidential candidate could say this on national television and still be in the race. Here is a man who has deluded himself into thinking that dictators have softer, more "peaceful" sides to them that need coddling. How can he be taken seriously in a time when foreign policy is of critical importance?

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

More pacifism. For anything to pass the "global test", it has to appeal to Europeans, and Europeans are, by and large, liberal. Try finding the elaborate conservative media network we have in the United States (right-wing talk radio, FOX News, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) in any of the European countries. (Good luck to you in your hopeless task, by the way.) And countries dominated by liberalism tend to let their militaries shrink and fall into disrepair. So for any proposed military venture to pass the "global test", it needs to be a) something with a workload that can be shouldered by small, out-of-date militaries , b) something that won't involve many deaths on either side, and c) waged against somebody other than Muslims (or pseudo-Muslims, because these assholes aren't true Muslims), because that might breed more terrorists. Which makes "global test" a codephrase for "pacifism", because I don't see how those conditions would be conducive to any future operations against our current batch of enemies (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc.)

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Pacifists, in their even-handed, don't-ruffle-the-feathers way, tend not to see a difference between democracies and theocratic dictatorships. To them, it's just another way of doing things, and to object would be culturally insensitive. I'd argue that theocratic dictatorships are being culturally insensitive to their citizens by not allowing them to define the culture in which they live through the everyday exercise of basic human and democratic rights. I'd also point out that as citizens in a democratic society, it is in their best interests to oppose non-democracies, since only non-democracies, not other democracies, attack democracies. Kerry appears to be one of those pacifists to which the above needs to be explained.

I am very surprised that so many members of the media (even some conservatives) are chalking this up as a victory for Kerry. Kerry has provided Bush with a ton of ammo for his next round of campaign ads, and if Rove and Co. handle it properly, I don't see how Kerry can recover. Kerry left the ball in Bush's court, and any time you have to rely on your opponent's ineptitude for success, you're taking the matter out of your hands. And not being in control of your own destiny is not how I would define victory.

As for the post-debate coverage, the initial reaction from the gang over at MSNBC was that Kerry had "won" the debate, though a few minutes later, they conceded that Bush was the better man in the first half-hour. Which only means that they're living in that old media coccoon, because newsflash, guys: a lot of people don't have to watch the entire thing like you do. They get up to go to the bathroom, they talk with friends and family and miss certain details, or they get bored and do something else (and there was certainly a lack of energy onstage to prompt them.) You've got to weigh what's upfront heavier than what comes after. Do it that way, and Bush definitely "wins" the debate.

Also, is there anything more useless on cable news shows than having two campaign advisers spend a segment debating one another? How enlightening is it to have two guys who are basically paraphrasing the opinions and talking points of their bosses go at it? You might as well have two tape recorders with tape loops of the candidates yacking away---at least they'd be easier to book. Really, paid opinions are no fun to listen to. Get off of it, already.

-Dave O'Connell

P.S. The above was posted at PeterDavid.net and received this response:

But there are two issues with Iraq that seem to be so obvious that no one actually mentions them.

* First, and I know I've said this in [this] forum before, armies of occupation rarely work in the long term.

* Second, a power vaccuum can be much worse than a tyrant. The tyrant has at least a superficial obligation to meet his subject's needs.

To the first comment, I'd say it's a valid concern, but occupying a country with a view to eventually giving it sovereignty is preferrable to the alternative. As for the second comment, I'd say he has it the wrong way around. The alternative to occupation would have been a power vacuum, which would have started once Saddam Hussein died or tried to hand over power to one of his sons. Only this time, the various factions would not only be tussling over control of Iraq, but control of various weapons programs. I prefer settling the matter now, under less dire circumstances, than trying to settle it years down the road, when we would be at a catastrophic disadvantage.