That Kerry Column

Kerry made a few points in his NY Times editorial today that were pretty interesting, mostly because they amounted to little more distortions of current administration policy on Iraq and misrepresentations of what is really going on there. Taking a few of Kerry's recommendations for "the speech the President should give":

The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

President Bush and the administration would most certainly agree with that. Indeed, that's a point that they have have made all along. Here's Donald Rumsfeld, from a news conference in April 2003:

"I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news conference. "The likelihood of it seems to me to be so low that it does not surprise me that it's never been discussed in my presence -- to my knowledge."

The President also answered that point directly in his speech tonight.

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis — who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops — who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy — who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed — and not a day longer.

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever — when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.

More from Kerry:

He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December.

Yup, and that is exactly what is happening as we speak.

Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.

Probably a good idea. The Iraqi President said the same thing back in April, and repeated it again earlier this month.

If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face.

And liberals like John Kerry will continue to misrepresent the big picture of what is actually happening in Iraq.