Kerry flips Bush the bird

Via The Reaction, John Kerry posts an great op-ed in the WaPo today. Michael thinks more highly of the good Senator than I do. I've never really been a big fan of Kerry's myself, but I have to agree that if he had been talking like this in 04, he might have won his spot in the Oval Office. The opening line alone is a stunner.

There's something much worse than being accused of "flip-flopping": refusing to flip when it's obvious that your course of action is a flop.

That would have been a dandy response when he was running. Too late did Kerry learn the Rovian trick of turning your opponent's slurs into an asset. Kerry goes on to bitch-slap Bush seven ways to Sunday. I especially like that he picked up on a point I made a few days ago.

We have already tried a trimmed-down version of the McCain plan of indefinitely increasing troop levels. We sent 15,000 more troops to Baghdad last summer, and today the escalating civil war is even worse. You could put 100,000 more troops in tomorrow and you're only going to add to the number of casualties until Iraqis sit down together at a bargaining table and compromise. The barrel of a gun can't answer the question of how you force Iraqi nationalism to trump sectarian loyalty.

The only hope for stability lies in pushing Iraqis to forge a sustainable political agreement on federalism, distributing oil revenues and neutralizing sectarian militias. And that will happen only if we set a deadline to redeploy our troops.

Exactly right. Bush promised last spring that the summer of 06 would see a huge turnaround in Iraq from the surge they were planning for the summer. We all know how that worked out. The violence has only escalated out of control. Why on earth do they think the result will be different this time? And the point is well taken that the Iraqis have done jack unless they're under pressure to perform. At every "turning point" from the turn over of sovereignty to the formation of the government, the Iraqis have dithered around until we set a firm timetable for them.

Judging from this latest development, nothing has changed. Dashing the Bush administration's hopes of forcing a new coalition in the Iraq government that would margalinize al-Sadr's power, revered cleric al-Sistani "will not bless nor support any new bloc or front. He only supports the unity of the Shiites." As long our troops are there to referee this civil war and run interference with the Sunnis for them, the Shia are not going to turn against the man who is so instrumental in putting together a Sharia-based government for them. That Sadr hates the US is a plus in Iraq, not a detriment.

They all hate us, but as long as we're there pumping money into their coffers and effectively protecting their militias, the people in power who are reaping the benefits are not going to kick us out. Bleeding our treasury and our troops dry suits their purposes, and ironically also suits the purposes of the extremists who don't really care who is in charge of Iraq as long as it causes discomfort to the US and reinforces the Islamic theocracy we helped to install.

[thanks to Memeorandum for the link]