COMMENTARY How Bush, Kerry are one and
the same By Ehsan Ahrari
If
national-security issues are driving the US presidential
race - and they certainly are - then why is President
George W Bush not doing worse than his numbers currently
show? That is a question that deserves some explanation.
A CNN-Gallup poll issued on Tuesday shows Bush holding a
slight lead over John Kerry, the Democratic Party's
nominee for the presidency - 48-46% - among registered
voters. For a sitting president, that is not at all a
comfortable lead. For the challenger, that lead is also
problematic because Bush is likely to experience the
"boost factor" stemming from the Republican National
Convention that is currently in progress.
The
security situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is worsening;
however, the focus of presidential debate is not whether
Bush misled the United States into invading Iraq - by
harping on the non-existent weapons of mass destruction,
or that he should have stayed in Afghanistan and
finished the task of eradicating al-Qaeda and Taliban
forces. Bush's misinformation about Iraq and his faux
pas regarding Afghanistan have been taken as facts. Yet
the voters don't seem to want to punish him. At least
that is not the case when one looks at these numbers.
Perhaps the fault lies with Kerry. Kerry is a
decorated hero of the Vietnam War. He made a calculated
decision to run on that fact very early on for two
reasons. First, in the post-September 11, 2001
environment, candidates' national-security credentials
were expected to remain a major focus of public debate
and attention. Second, the sudden departure of Howard
Dean as the Democratic front-runner after losing in the
Iowa caucuses underscored that voters were paying great
attention to the electability variable before casting
their ballots. In other words, a credible presidential
candidate must have actual experience either in the
government related to national-security issues or during
a war. However, Kerry's emphasis on his credentials as a
war hero also became a major focus of presidential
debate - sort of an albatross - as a result of negative
advertisements involving a group of Vietnam veterans,
the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", who are
questioning facts underlying Kerry's war medals.
Here is a great irony. Kerry went to Vietnam and
risked his life, while Bush used his family connections
and joined the Air National Guard to avoid going to
Vietnam. Bush never saw the face of a real battlefield,
yet he continues to tout himself as a "war president".
Kerry fought a war, but his record has become an issue
of gutter politics. Just that difference between the two
candidates is stark enough, but in the highly charged
political environment nothing remains sacred, not even
acts of valor carried out for the love of one's country.
The entire outcome of this exercise of trivializing
related to Kerry's war record is taking its toll on his
lead. As much as people say they despise dirty politics,
they continue to watch and pay attention to all its
putrid details in the same manner as they watch a soap
opera.
Then there is another related irony. In
the months of July and August, a major brunt of
presidential debate was on Kerry's Vietnam record and
his activities as an anti-war activist on his return
from Vietnam, while Iraq remained a highly unstable
place. Ghosts of Vietnam captured the attention of the
US public, while its young people were either dying or
were facing the constant specter of death in Iraq. The
Bush campaign succeeded in keeping the public attention
off, at least temporarily, its own actions leading to
the Iraq imbroglio.
One of the main reasons for
a lack of focus on Iraq might have been the absence of a
clear alternative regarding that besieged country. On
the question of what's to be done about Iraq in the
coming months, both candidates insist on staying
committed. Kerry only tepidly identifies a different
approach - his multilateralism, as opposed to Bush's
unilateralism. But what happens if no major country
wishes to commit its forces to Iraq? The chances of such
a possibility are quite high, especially if insurgency
remains at its present pace. Kerry knows he has no
choice but to leave US forces committed in Iraq if he
becomes president. So the American people see no
difference between the two on that issue. They are
right.
What about Afghanistan, the second major
battlefield against transnational terrorism? Regarding
this country as well, there is no significant difference
between Kerry and Bush. Both wish to remain focused on
capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and other top
al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. After that, both of them
are likely to hand over Afghanistan to the United
Nations, which does not exactly have a shining record of
nation-building, especially in the absence of strong
commitment by major powers. There are already
suggestions in Washington that Afghanistan is
ungovernable. Well, those who are aware of the history
of that tormented country cannot argue against that.
However, the US was fully aware of that fact all along.
The question is why Washington is abuzz with such
suggestions now. Whatever the real reasons, they don't
point to prospects of a bright future from the
potentials of America's lasting commitment. So it is
possible that the American voters recognize the hopeless
situation in Afghanistan and don't wish to penalize the
sitting president for being ambiguous about the country.
The preceding are some of the reasons Kerry
could not establish himself as a distinct and a
different leader. But an additional factor should also
be considered. The real problem with Kerry's candidacy
is that he is a politician whose comfort zone has always
been close to the center of a political spectrum.
Consequently, he has gotten used to responding to his
natural instincts, proclivities and impulses for
moderation. In the post-September 11 era, such a
politician cannot impress the voters, even when the
record of the sitting president on the awesome issues of
wars - to be precise, on the post-military campaign
performance - in Iraq and Afghanistan is mediocre. The
best Kerry seems to be offering to the voters right now
is the Democratic Party's version of a mediocre
presidential leadership. Why should the American voters
defeat the sitting president with a mediocre record on
national security and elect a senator who has thus far
proved himself to be very much at home with playing it
safe, remaining at the center, but never demonstrating
courage as a politician to damn the torpedoes and moving
full speed ahead on issues of national security?
It may still not be too late for Kerry to do
just that, accentuate his bold measures, especially
regarding Iraq. A 2-5% lead for Bush is entirely
spurious; it might dissipate almost instantly, but only
if Kerry can imminently articulate the difference
between him and his opponent. What should be the
specifics of his bold approach? Well, only Kerry can
articulate that approach, if he is serious about
convincing the voters that there is indeed a Kerry
difference that should be in White House for the next
four years, instead of George Bush.
Ehsan
Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based
independent strategic analyst.
(Copyright
2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
