Asymmetrical Information

How will Kerry's foreign policy look?

Smarter. That is the short answer.

The three Kerry votes you are concerned about are simple, if only you'd look with an open mind.

First. The first gulf war was basically an American led effort to take some oil fields away from one tyrant (Hussain) and return them to an absolute monarchy (Kuwait)

If it wasn't for the oil there Bush Sr. would not have given shit about the dispute. No one really cared enough about territorial integrity, except when oil was involved, to get involved in other territorial issues around the world.

Was it in our interests? I never thought so. What does it matter who we buy our oil from. Whoever has it has one of two choices: sell it or choke on it. I bet they sell it every time.

Second. Kerry caved and voted to give Bush a stronger hand, as Bush was absolutely insisting he needed, to deal with Saddam Hussain. Bush was threatening political retaliation to those who voted against him as he also insisted that the vote take place immeciately prior to a midterm election. Cheap shot. Typical Karl Rove ploy.

Kerry's only mistake in this, INHO, was in trusting George W Bush and to take his word that he would act responsibly. He should have stood up to Bush then as he is now. But many of us were fooled by Bush so Kerry cannot be condenmed for this.

Third. Kerry vote was a protest vote against borrowing money to fund the war. He did not, as is often mischaractorized, vote against our soldiers. If his vote, and his vote alone would have made the difference between our troops recieving war material or not, he would have made sure the troops got what they needed.

Jane:

(Not really what you want, but…)

Events will, of course, overtake any plans Kerry might have. Moreover, I don't think what Kerry has said has any connection to what will really happen - I think he's saying what is politically palatable. Thus, the following strikes me as what a sane person would do, and I trust Kerry will listen to realist experts and do some of the following:

1. Iraq: Iraq is now a salvage mission. Either you buy that or you don't, but I think more and more people are coming to that conclusion. As a result, Kerry and Bush would probably take the same actions - hold elections that at least appear partially legitimate, see a strong man put in place, train his army, declare victory, and leave. We'll be all but out of there in 2 years, largely because Iraq never mattered, and our taste for bearing the war's costs will continue to diminish as consensus develops around Iraq's unimportance. It's easier for Kerry to make these moves, because it's not his mistake, so it's easier for him to admit (privately) that the war was a mistake.

2. Slowly, but surely, the WOT (a horrible, horrible idea) will be pulled back. We'll look to protect the US from outside threats, but we won't be trying to create Utopias in other countries so people will be happy. Instead, we'll try to balance powers in the ME, and (if we can get away with it), we'll keep Iraq a slight mess so that neighboring countries spend their efforts addressing control for Iraq. Absent provocation (like Afghanistan and 9/11), no new wars in a first Kerry term.

3. If we can do it, tie the Iraqi war to Bush rather than the US, and let people outside the US (who generally like us, and who want desperately to believe in a sane US) decide that Bush was an aberration rather than a representative of a continuing strand of foreign policy.

4. I hope we push Russia towards democracy. The only grave threat to the US is a reconstituted and regnant USSR (even if it only includes Russia).

5. As a general matter, I hope the US takes the attitude that covert action, or action through allies, is our preferred method of achieving our goals. We are far and away the biggest kid on the block - there are no threats to our existence because we're just so big. But it generally doesn't pay to flaunt that fact. If we are provoked (e.g., 9/11), we should go in hard and destroy quickly, but we should mop up only to the extent it helps the US directly, and where we can we should offload mop-ups to allies.

6. Generally, I think Kerry's team (any team) will be more competent than Bush's. Look around at what we've spent our capital (incl. prestige) on, and what we've got in return. If you don't think that it's pretty strong evidence that the Administration's team is a fair bit below average, and therefore there's a better than even chance that Kerry team would be better than that, then specific arguments about competence aren't going to convince you. If you think we've achieved a lot - well, we physically see different worlds, and no metric I can point to will convince you.

7. As for his votes - pure politics. I think that Kerry went where the wind blew him in 1991 and in 2001. And he achieved what he intended to do - his voting for this war allowed him to get the Democratic nomination, his voting against the supplemental was probably intended to signal backbone. I think looking for or demanding consistency from politicians on areas we (meaning everyone) don't understand well is demanding trouble.

I'd rather the true-believers weren't making the decisions, just advising the decision maker. I prefer technicians to visionaries, I guess, b/c I think visionaries tend to have appalling success rates.

I agree with poster (A) on Kerry's 1991 vote. I disrespect his 2002 war authorization; many other senators stood against it, and it should not be a political handicap to stand with half of the American people on an issue. The war financing dissent was a dissent against the method of financing and also a dissent against the current state of plans to spend the money. It was not to say "let's abandon the troops", but "let's take better care of the troops and the situation by trying to send a signal to the administration that they need to improve their planning".

As far as the "what is the foreign policy going to look like issue", I believe that Kerry's policy will differ in not being so quick to go it alone or be a maverick as Bush, but will be substantially similar to Bush's on Israel, on China, on North Korea, and many other areas. He looks like he'll differ a bit on trade initially, but Bush's administration has had some advances and retreats depending on how the other side reacts (e.g., steel tariffs), and it's reasonable to expect a moderating international influence on Kerry as well. Although it is difficult to imagine strong international resistance to Kerry's plan to more heavily tax outsourcing U.S. corporations. (Maybe in another decade this will be viewed as "protectionism".

I'm dying to know Jane -- did the above comments convince you?

Kerry's foreign policy will resemble Clinton's. Kerry beleves in using diplomacy and working through global organizations. This kind of policy will be effective so long as the US never gets on a real war footing. The so-called war on terrorism actually doesn't resemble a real war. We got hit on 9/11, but there's been nothing since then. AQ is more like the IRA in Britain than the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. If AQ cease to pose a threat, then Kerry's foreign policies will work out.

Tim,

Why do you think that the GWOT is a horrible horrible idea? I admit I was surprised when Bush announced it, because I didn't think that we had suffered enough from terrorism to support a GWOT. But that being said, I've long viewed a GWOT as being inevitable, but further into the future. Now that it's here, why is it worse to have it now than later?

I agree with most thats been written here.

Rex I cant speak for Tim, but I think his criticism of Bushs WOT is limited to Iraq.

A few facts about Desert Storm. As Saddam was amassing troops at the Kuwaiti border our ambassador to Iraq, I think it was Fitzsimmons, told Saddam we would continue our policy of nonintervention in arab conflicts if he moved on Kuwait. Then SA got scared, and Bush came when he was called.

Its funny that the Bush version of real politick has rendered his entire past pre 40 off limits, but makes issues of 15 year old votes from Kerry. Even when the current VP voted with him many times. Beyond that, the reps believe "911 changed everything" unless it applies to Kerry.

I don't understand what the confusion here is Jane.

Vote I -- 1991 Iraq -- Against, we were putting our kids on the line for a war that was about oil. Not exactly hard to see why someone would want to vote against it.

Vote II -- 2002 Iraq -- For. "Yes Mr. President, you say he has helped terrorists, you say he has WMDs, you are working with the UN and hope to work with the international community. Yes, if you, as a meassured, well thought out adult, feel that you need to go to war, I vote to support you."

As someone who did not support the first Gulf War, and who did not support this one, at the time of the vote, I was still very much undecided. I was still making up my mind and did not think anything of the congress authorizing the president to go to war if the President felt it was needed. I, of course, thought the president would have all the facts available and would have solid plans in place. I assumed he would listen to his generals. I assumed he would take going to war seriously. Both Mr. Kerry and I were wrong.

Vote III -- 2003 Iraq -- Against 87 Bil. It was like voting for Perot in 1992. You knew the bill was going to pass overwhelmingly. You the the President was going to ratify it. It was a protest vote. Get over it.

I'd like more information on the Kerry "protest vote." While I can see the parallel with voting for Perot in 1992, it's not all that relevant - after all, Kerry was one of only 100 people, not a couple hundred million. His vote was meaningful even though it lost. (As the current campaign amply demonstrates - his protestations aside, people know about that vote.) Why didn't he follow up his vote with a letter to the President, for instance, explaining it and urging a reconsideration? Or preface his vote with such a letter?

I'm sure if he'd written or otherwise communicated directly with the White House, we'd know about it by now, through his campaign. Did I miss something, or is such communication conspicuous by its absence? I don't want to be snippy here (Lord forbid!), but what was he, too busy?

Extreme confusion here. Kate said,
"Vote I -- 1991 Iraq -- Against, we were putting our kids on the line for a war that was about oil. Not exactly hard to see why someone would want to vote against it."

Let's assume for the moment that GW I was all about oil. Why does that make it bad? Do you know how much of our economy is dependent on oil, and what the economic consequences of Saddam holding all of Kuwait's oil, as well as possibly Saudi Arabia's and Irans? So, to me, it's extremely hard to see someone would want to vote against GW I EVEN IT IT'S ONLY ABOUT OIL!

Jaime, Kerry more than fully explained his protest vote against the 87 billion dollar supplemental package. At the time, he voted yes to the same bill that paid the $87 billion by rolling back the tax cut.

Rex, Kate never said it was "bad" to vote against Desert Storm because it was all about oil. She said she could see why some might find sacraficing American lives for cheaper oil could be a matter of conscience for some.

I'd love for those people defending Kerry's 1991 vote to explain to us all where we'd be today if Kerry's position against the Gulf War had prevailed. After all, those UN inspectors who "disarmed" Saddam only were there as a result of the Gulf War cease fire. In fact, it is pretty clear that we'd be looking at a nuclear armed Saddam (remember that there WAS an active nuclear program at the time, which turned out to be much closer to a bomb than had been previously thought).

In hindsight, Kerry's vote against the Gulf War looks EVEN WORSE today than it did then. But I guess for some people "no blood for oil" is simplistic enough to be convincing.

Kerry fought in a war and believes, like the
Duke of Wellington, that a victory is the greatest
disaster in the world, excepting only a defeat.

So there will be much more jaw jaw, and less war
war. His painstaking effort to clear up the
POW-MIA issue and thus normalize relations with
Vietnam points the way. He will talk and talk and
talk until the conflicting parties are bored into
accepting a peace.

Having said that, when attacked he will respond
with deadly force as necessary.

He will engage in real negotiations where we
accept that each side may have to give up
something it values to achieve an agreement.
Notably in North Korea, he will engage in
bilateral negotiations and probably offer some
kind of non-aggression guarantee in return for
a verifiable nuclear freeze.

Now to history:

The vote against 1991 Gulf War. He probably
believed that the crucial objective (getting
Saddam out of Kuwait) could have been achieved
by negotiation rather than war. For those who
criticize this, if the war was such a great idea
and a huge success, then how come we had to fight
Saddam Hussein again just 12 years later ?
From Saddam's tactics in that war (withdrawing
the Republican Guard) it seems that he was quite
prepared to give up Kuwait in order to maintain
his rule over Iraq - so maybe that outcome could
have been achieved by negotiation rather than
killing >100000 Iraqi conscripts ? We'll never
know for sure.

The vote to authorize use of force in October 2002
At that time, there was general agreement that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons, and
a fear that he might be working on nukes. UN
inspectors had no access (since 1998 ?). Bush
claimed that he would go to the UN, seek to
get inspectors get back to fix the WMD issue, and
would only go to war as a last resort. By March
2003 it was clear that the US intelligence was
garbage, the UN inspectors had found nothing, and
Saddam had provided much documentation of his
disarmament. If Kerry had been in charge, he
would surely have agreed with France and Germany
to continue the inspection process, rather than
invade essentially alone.

The 2003 vote on the $87B. Kerry voted for a
proposal to fund $87B by rolling back taxcuts.
Bush had threatended to veto this - solid proof
that Bush thinks taxcuts are a higher priority
than the war! Kerry also felt that the
administration had an inadequate and unrealistic
plan to achieve pacification and reconstruction
of Iraq (a view which looks utterly correct now),
and as a member of the Senate minority his only
way to apply leverage to get the administration
to fix this was to vote against the funding.

So in short, Kerry favors tedious and serious
negotation over war whenever possible; but if
he has to fight a war, he'll make sure that there
is a comprehensive and realistic plan, and
compentent people in charge.

I was in junior high during Desert Storm, so I can't really speak to that (and I haven't heard the Kerry campaign speak to it either). But, forgive me as I explain the latter two votes with some reference to what may in fact be campaign talking points, which I know goes against the rules. It's difficult to avoid the overlap, you see, because Kerry's explanations are just so darned "true" and/or, if you prefer, consistent with a "reality-based" world view. While the Bush campaign characterizes Kerry's Iraq record as one vote "for the war" and then a vote "against funding the troops," that is a gross distortion.

At the time the first vote took place, Bush would not have framed the vote as either "for" or "against" "war". He was asking congress for the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam. An "aye" was not a vote to invade Iraq, it was a vote to give the president the ability to plausibly threaten force as a means to encourage cooperation with weapons inspectors. Furthermore, in the event that such cooperation were not forthcoming, the vote authorized the president to actualize his threat as a last resort, and only as a last resort. The president lied to congress and Kerry and you and everyone else about the necessary preconditions to his launching an invasion, and he continues to lie in order to slander Kerry as a flip-flopper and conveniently also elide the fact of his deception.

(Jamie, I believe Kerry actually gave press conferences explaining in detail the rationale for his votes at the time they were made. He was already a primary candidate at the time, so his every move was of course subject to scrutiny.)

Kerry voted against the president's preferred $87b bill, because Kerry supported an alternative $87b bill. Whichever version of the bill passed, the troops would have been funded. The difference had to do with how the bill would be financed, either by increased debt (Bush version) or by rollback to Clinton-era income taxes for those reporting $200k & up and by calling some portion of the $87b a "loan" to Iraq (Kerry version). Bush issued what I understand was one of his only plausible threats of veto should the Kerry version have passed. I deduce that he prefers tax cuts for the rich to funding for the troops he sent to die for his vanity.

Kerry's explanation of the supposed flip-flop entailed by these votes has unfortunately been confused with his explanation for a quote that Bush and Cheney love to flog -- the "actually voted for ... before voted against" quote. Kerry admits he made a mistake about the way he "talked about the war," for which he is paying a political price, because the quote is easily taken out of context and exploited by the incumbent. Contrast this with the mistakes Bush has made in launching the war based on deceit and waging the war with utter incompetence, for which soldiers are paying with their lives everyday.

Everyone believes that 9/11 fundamentally altered Bush's view of the world and we should not use his statements prior to 9/11 to inform our understanding of what he plans to do. Can I use similar rationale to ignore Iraq 1?

Iraq 2: giving a president authorization to use force is different than telling the president to use force. sorta like, it's nice to have a credit card in my pocket in case of emergency even though I have no desire to ever use it.

Kerry seems to understand that we're in a contest against non-state actors. I'm not at all certain that Bush does, but both of these statements are partially based on action. Non-state actors require a different sort of fight than rogue states.

Bush not putting enough troops into Afganistan to stabilize the country AND eliminate the opium trade is a huge problem for me. Bush not securing the KNOWN nuclear sites in Iraq post-invasion is a huge problem for me. Bush's rep. giving a presentation with a slide that says "post-war planning to come" is a huge problem for me. Bush telling Pat R. that we won't have casualities in Iraq is a huge problem to me. The collection of people that have NOT been fired for massive screw-ups is a huge problem to me.

On the other hand, Bob Shrum is a first-class idiot. I'm hoping that Joe Biden would be in the cabinet and I have hopes for a strong republican such as Grassley from Iowa. But, really, I have no idea who Kerry would pull.

I'm at the point where I can summarize it as: I'm 100% sure that Bush would make a huge mess in the next 4 years given his record. I have no idea what Kerry would do.

Supplemental: well, he wanted the supplemental to have the money for Iraq in loans. I don't see why that should bother a libertarian. Bush was threatening to veto it if the supplemental came with loans in it. As the congress didn't send it up, we never saw if he would, but you don't ask Bush supporters to explain the President's veto threat. So, it seems that you're objecting to Kerry's not voting for a bill that he didn't support all of even though it was obvious that it was going to pass.

It seems that standing on principle is something that libertarians should understand quite well. Then again, I'm making the assumption that there was principle involved rather than some sort of political pandering. That I have no ability to convince you of. Campaign rhetoric sounds lovely, but really means crap.

Given my probability calculation above, well, I'll take the unknown.

Tim:

"The collection of people that have NOT been fired for massive screw-ups is a huge problem to me."

I think of it as further support for my theory that Republicans are the new hippies. After all, accountability is mean (to paraphrase Bush on why he wouldn't name names on his screw-up appointments).

Comments are Closed.