Stephen Den Beste, author of one of my favorite bogs has an well written post on Iraq and Senator Kerry here.
Stephen comments on the interview Kerry did recently in TIME magazine. After reading this interview seperately from Stephens blog, I can comment on the one quote that had me scratching my head too.
"TIME: Why would internationalizing the occupation of Iraq be a more effective strategy for stabilizing the country?
KERRY: The legitimacy of the governing process that emerges from an essentially American process is always subject to greater questioning than one that is developed with broader, global consent."
Global consent is what had left Saddam in power to begin with. The various countries who threatened vetos, or for instance like Russia, actively assisted Saddam before, during, and quite possibly even after the war, were never going to benefit the regular Iraqis. As Stephen quite accurately points out, we did not go in to Iraq out of our concern for the Iraqi people, we went in because Saddam was a threat to us and the world. Whether or not Saddam had warehouses full of WMD's was not the only issue either. The fact that he had systematically eliminated dissenting memebers of his own country in a Nazi-like fashion wasn't enough for the UN to remove him. What it took was the US finally realizing that if we do not become pro-active in removing defined threats to our existence, we will be attacked again on a scale of at least as bad as 9/11. Saddam was a threat to the US, without question. The number of international terrorist groups he supported, not to mention the number of wanted terrorists suspects he harbored should be proof enough.
Now that he is gone, what is most important for the US and the Iraqis is the ability for the Iraqis to take control of their country again. The bombing during Ashura the most important religious date for Shiites, seemed to attempt to thwart the Iraqis attempts to regain this control. It doesn't appear to have succeeded.
What I draw from this is that the UN is actually incapable of assisting Iraq regain control of its country. Giving Iraq more of a "global consent" would have disasterous consequences. It would allow the other dictators of the area to play power games and attempt to disrupt a true democracy from taking shape.
The fact that Kerry doesn't acknowledge this reality shows that he has not really thought this angle through correctly. And it will make me want to vote for him even less. Turning Iraq over to the UN would be the fastest way to destroy everything both the US, its allies, and the Iraqis have worked for.
On a scarier note, turning over the security of the US to the UN, which is really what Kerry speaks of doing, is incomprehensible. The single most important job of the president is protecting the US citizens. Turning over this job to "global consent" would be shirking your responsibilities. I shudder at the though of this man as president right now, and worse than I did about Bush Jr when I voted for Gore.
UPDATE: Well well well.......Mr Kerry has spoken to "unnamed foreign leaders" who were eager to see him defeat Bush on Nov. 2. -
Link via LGF. Kerry stated "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said. ".......things like that 'n stuff....(shaking head)
Memo to Mr Kerry- If you can't name who stated these opinions, keep them to yourself. Foreign policy isn't a popularity contest. Did it ever occur to you that if certain foreign leaders don't like our foreign policy that that might be a GOOD thing? Since you won't say who it is, I can only guess. Kim jong Il doesn't like our foreign policy? Too bad. The Mullahs in Iran? They don't like it either? What a shocker. Tony Blair, a definitive ally of the US, seems to agree completely with our foreign policy, most specifically how we are handling the fight against terrorists. Kerry continues to dig his hole deeper.....