Bob Kerrey Strikes Back

Two weeks ago, former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey provoked some very understandable outrage with a column decrying the American left for its short-sighted and reactionary approach to the Iraq War. I offered a half-hearted defense of Kerrey because there was a valid point somewhere in the middle of his apologetics and revisionism, but it was not an easy argument to make because Kerrey was just so wrong about so much.

Lucky for us - as Nebraska Democrats wanting to maintain faith in one of our party's favorite sons and as progressives wanting constructive ideas for challenging the Iraq War's disastrous stay the course status quo - the conscience of the American news media, Bill Moyers, provided Kerrey an opportunity to elaborate upon his ideas and to vindicate his vision for our future military engagement in the entire Middle East.

On PBS' Journal this weekend, Bob Kerrey stated in his own words:

I would say we end the occupation today. Our mission should not be to occupy Iraq. Our mission should be to be a reliable ally of the Iraqi government in their effort to survive.....

I think it's likely that the Iraqi government will say, we need some kind of U.S. force to make certain that a much stronger in Syria, much stronger military in Iran, and much stronger military in Turkey don't take advantage of a potential power vacuum. But they have to ask us what they want....

I would say yes to maintaining some kind of military force for that purpose. And if they ask us to have forces left not as occupiers, but to help make certain that those borders are protected, I would say yes....[T]hey ask us for economic and military assistance, I would say yes, up to a point.....

I think where we get in trouble is where we are out there operating their prisons, operating their jails, operating and even training their police force. It's very difficult to get that done in a fashion in the modern age, without these images of us knocking down doors, which I think undercuts essentially what we're trying to do....

I don't think Iraq and Vietnam are the same. But there are things that are very much alike. The first is, you're occupying this country. And you can't expect a kid that we've trained to be a good soldier to understand the difference between Shi'a and Sunni. We're trying to sensitize them. But at the same time, you're training them as soldiers. And...they're not trained as diplomats. They're not trained as aid workers. They're not trained as policemen. I do not think a mission of occupying Iraq is going to be successful.

I think that going after radical Islamic jihadists is absolutely essential. And I think as well, remaining a reliable ally of Iraq is important. But a reliable ally does not mean that we have to say yes to everything that's asked of us. And I think finally I would say...within reason -- and there's a lot in that statement, "within reason" -- you have to constantly press to expand the negotiations that are going on, both in the region and internationally, about what to do to make certain that Iraq has a chance of becoming a stable government in the aftermath of this war....

[T]he problem is that we don't have a bipartisan foreign policy today to deal with these radical Islamic jihadists. And...for the sake of our...soldiers that we're sending over there and for the sake of this larger battle, [we've got to] find a way to get bipartisan consensus on what to do about global jihadists.....

I think that the politicians in Washington understand that they can't survive the status quo. I don't believe that you're going to get Republican members of Congress very smiling ear to ear when they hear the President and the Vice President say we don't care about public opinion because we don't have to face the voters again. Republican Congress, people in Congress do face the voters. And they understand that that status quo is unacceptable. That's what the voters are saying....

The casualties are up. The cost is up....And the President still refuses to go to funerals. And the coverage of the caskets coming back are not national news. At home, they are....Those kids are coming home and they're being buried, and their families are grieving them, and their families are welcoming back their sons and daughters without legs, with brain damage, et cetera. And they don't like it. And I do not believe that Republicans or Democrats in Washington, D.C. misunderstand that. They know it....

The problem is, the very people who criticize us getting rid of dictatorships will then go on to say our problem is we're supporting all those dictators in the Middle East....[W]hich way do you want it? Do you want us to support dictators or oppose dictators.

We brought the dictator down....What's going on now is a war against a government....[T]hat war against...[the Iraqi] government is being fought by people who not just see liberal democracy in the United States as a problem, but liberal democracy in Iraq as an even bigger problem.

[M]any people in this debate are saying get out, period. Bring them all home tomorrow...[T]hat basically says...we're not going to help you in any way, shape or form. It was a mistake for us to go in. It's your problem. You fix it. And what we're doing is making the same mistake that many people made prior to the 2003 invasion, imposing our own ideas upon them.....

Iraq has become central to the war on terror. But the question now is, what do you do about it? And how do we responsibly respond to that fact? And it's very difficult to do because you could play an Air America piece and get a radio piece that was critical of what I said...It's sort of what's going on in many parts of the world. People who are trying to express a moderate view get driven out of the debate because they become the most important target....

I don't like the status quo of us saying, well, we have to support these dictators, because look what happened in Iraq....I mean, for the United States foreign policy to say we're just going to accept the status quo and go back to the status quo, putting our arms and cozying up to dictators because at least they provide stability. Saddam Hussein provided stability in Iraq by killing any Shi'a and any Kurd and anybody who opposed him....that's what he did. Was it stable? Yes. Was there violence inside of Iraq? Yes. If you were a Kurd, if you were a Shi'a, if you were anybody who opposed, he drove you either into prison or he drove you out of the country.

But...it was more acceptable for us, because it wasn't the kind of sectarian violence and brutality that we're seeing right now. And our troops weren't on the ground....

[T]he loss is incalculable. I mean, you've got a young person who dies and never develops, never, you know, sees their kids...It's an incomparable loss. And I think it's one of the things that I think the President has made a mistake in not doing -- going to funerals and allowing us to grieve these losses. And the losses are as great in Iraq, with families who are losing -- losing loved ones as well. Two million refugees...have left Iraq.

Allow[] yourself to feel that. Otherwise, it's not possible...to proceed in a correct fashion. You can be paralyzed by it. I would definitely say I do think that if this government of Iraq survives....if it survives as a democracy, I do believe that you're going to be able to say that the price was worth it....

The end game for me is one, we have to say we are not the occupying force. And it's not a small matter. We're not occupying Iraq any longer. We're ending the occupation. Secondly....that we are going to work to create bipartisan domestic and global strategies to deal with global jihadism. And thirdly, that we will remain an ally of Iraq and let the Iraqi government...make your requests. Tell us what you want. And we will say yes or no, depending upon whether or not we believe that it's an appropriate mission and appropriate for us to do it, or we have the resources....

I just see both the left and the right choosing to use words like betrayal and treachery any time somebody reaches a compromise....The problem is we don't have the conversation to find out where we agree and that's what's missing - the means by which the public can have a conversation and discover where the agreement is and then urge the Congress to do something in that area....

[Last November,] voters basically said "no" and that's not very clear instructions. In Nebraska, it's the number one issue. 49% of Nebraskans self-identify the Iraq war as the number one issue....I've never seen that situation, but if you poll...what should be done. Equally divided - withdraw, stay the course....

But neither answer is an answer. That's the problem.

Of course, there's some pretty heavy-duty editing going on above. I've left out Kerrey's defense of the Democratic Congress' recent compromise with President Bush from charges of capitulation, as well as his controversial call for refocusing the War on Terror on more surgical strikes with seemingly little to no regard for Middle Eastern countries' territorial sovereignty. Frankly, I agree with Kerrey about the former but am quite severely troubled by the implications of the latter and its potential to ignite a true regional conflict that could quickly become global in scale.

But, for now, its worth emphasizing to precisely what degree Kerrey has vindicated himself with a well-reasoned and comprehensive vision for ending the occupation of Iraq and moving forward with a new idea for American involvement. You don't have to agree with Kerrey on every point he makes, but his central proposal is as bold, as thought-provoking, and as deserving of respect as any I've seen put forward.

That Kerrey has now articulated himself in a manner that still challenges established liberal orthodoxy without going out of his way to blame its adherents for the four years of failure and the nationwide fatigue resulting from a war they opposed from the start should go a long way towards restoring confidence in Kerrey and confidence in his credibility as a true voice for reform.

As for talk of Kerrey returning to Nebraska politics, there's nothing I can say about such speculation that isn't said more entertainingly and probably more astutely by the following piece of brilliant editorial cartooning by Neal Obermeyer, as it appeared in last week's Lincoln Journal-Star.