The reason why John Kerry’s campaign for the US presidency has not profited from the Iraq war is that he himself was an unequivocal supporter of the invasion. He has therefore struggled to find compelling alternative postwar policies. He faces two main difficulties. The first is that it is America’s way to rally behind its presidents in times of conflict. Criticism is disloyalty, especially if it comes from those who originally backed the action. The second difficulty is that even if Kerry moves into the White House next January, the controversial Iraq policy of Bush ought to have reached the end game. There are no worthwhile assurances the challenger can give.
In a speech to US veterans on Wednesday, Kerry aimed most of his fire at administrative failures in Iraq. At the heart of his strictures, however, was the obvious accusation that Bush charged into Iraq entirely focused on winning the one-sided war but with no thought that he would also need to win the peace. In this delusion Bush was not alone. Most Americans, including John Kerry, assumed that Saddam Hussein’s removal would be greeted with unbridled joy by all Iraqis and US and coalition troops would be welcomed enthusiastically as liberators.
Ignorance of the subtleties and complexities of Iraq coupled with a mystification turning to anger when Iraqis recoiled from US heavy-handedness in the early weeks of the occupation, meant Washington lost the peace almost immediately. George W. Bush finally admitted last week that many things could have been done differently in Iraq but he also accepted that it was too late to undo the harm. His administration is committed to grinding on in support of the interim government of Iyad Allawi until elections next year, when the plan is clearly to withdraw the coalition’s military contingents as quickly as possible. Kerry’s problem is that nothing he can say or do will unravel the mischief already caused by White House blundering. Worse, he cannot seek to present an informed US policy because the only interest US voters now have in the country is to disengage and get US boys back home.
Thus the most important US foreign policy issue since Vietnam turns out to have no electoral value to the presidential challenger. As the Republican Convention in New York continues on its folksy apple pie theme to the triumphant re-endorsement of Bush for four more years in the White House, Kerry, the war hero, is beginning to seem a less credible challenger. His Vietnam record has been besmirched by a vicious dirty tricks campaign. He has failed to capitalize on Bush’s avoidance of Vietnam service. He has failed to challenge the president as the leader of the global war on terror and has done little to force Bush to account for his rupture of longstanding alliances.
As a presidential contender, the hero is beginning to look distinctly unheroic, while the non-hero is gritting it out, to the apparent approval of many Americans. On present showing, the debacle in Iraq and the lies that preceded it are not of themselves going to cost George W. Bush the presidency.
