Bush-Kerry-Iraq Part II

One more article about Iraq and Kerry, then I will get to something else.

The question is: is the US on its own in Iraq, and is that a bad thing? Cheney pointed out on Tuesday night that we essentially have the same number of nations participating in Iraq as we did in the vaunted Desert Storm coalition. The issue is how you define and view alliances in respect to what is in the long run interest of the US.

George Friedman, of Stratfor, wrote the following in a piece on September 14, 2004 titled "The U.S. Election and the International System,"

“It seems to many countries that Kerry is looking at the estrangement of the United States from France and Germany as emblematic for what has happened around the world. The Italians and Pakistanis wonder what in the world Kerry is talking about.

Kerry is talking to an American audience. What he is saying is this: The alliance system that won the Cold War has been abandoned by Bush in fighting this war. It is essential to retain that alliance in this war. Now, since Britain is working with the United States, as are the majority of other European states, it is clear that he is speaking of the French and Germans, the two major allies from the Cold War that are missing. Kerry is certainly held in higher regard around the world than Bush, but he is confusing other countries by what he is saying. Other countries do not see unilateralism -- they would be delighted if the United States went ahead and did what it wanted without involving them. What they are seeing is intense and effective pressure on key countries for multilateral action. The last thing they see is unilateralism.

All of this goes back to basic foreign misunderstanding of American politics. Though both Bush and Kerry agree on the principle that the United States should never fight without allies -- that is a non-issue -- they disagree on two points. First, Bush argues that the alliance system that won the Cold War is irrelevant today; what Germany thinks on a subject doesn't matter nearly as much now as what Pakistan thinks. Kerry argues that the European relationships that won the Cold War should remain the foundations of foreign policy today. Bush's view of alliances is that they are temporary instruments designed to achieve particular ends; Kerry's view is that they ought to be permanent institutions for managing the international system.

The second issue goes to the heart of what an alliance is. Bush's view is that every alliance must be evaluated in terms of its utility for the United States and that the United States must pursue its foreign interests, even if an existing alliance resists it. Kerry appears to be arguing that since alliances should be seen as permanent institutional frameworks, accepting limitations on American freedom of action is a small price to pay for retaining critical international institutions. Bush, for example, looks at NATO in terms of its utility in this war and will not be limited by its lack of consensus. Kerry looks at NATO as a permanent and necessary institution that must survive this particular war, even if it means accommodating discordant views.”

I should mention that I came across this piece this last week as part of John Mauldin’s weekly newsletters. I am currently reading John’s new book, Bull’s Eye Investing, I’m only 25% of the way through it and it is one of the best books about investing that I have ever read, and I will be writing about it soon.

http://64.4.43.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=7f53206a0beb8604fb70eda5926ce865&lat=1096386862&hm___action=https%3a%2f%2fsecure%2estratfor%2ecom%2f2000wave%2f

Timothy Burger