Peace, war, and John Kerry

Whenever I’m in my hometown, Charlottesville, Virginia, on a Thursday I try to take part in the pro-peace “presence” that the C’ville Center for Peace and Justice maintains on a busy intersection in town for one hour during rush-hour, every week.
I was back there today with a great group of CCPJ friends. Our best sign is one that says “Honk for [peace symbol]”. It’s simple, it’s clear, and best of all it’s interactive.
Today, there was more honking and waving from passing drivers than ever. People seemed really charged up about the situation. I think there’s a convergence between the very disturbing news about the big new fighting in Iraq and the equally disturbing news coming out of the 9-11 Commission that is telling everyone that the whole move to invade and occupy Iraq was all along a big and dangerous diversion from the “real” war against terrorism.
I was just looking at the nationwide polling figures at this handy site that gathers all the recent data from the big national polling companies together in one place. A Zogby poll conducted April 1-4 found that 44% of respondents would re-elect Bush, while 51% wanted “someone new”. Bush against Kerry, however, it was 45% to 47%. So Kerry probably needs to come out and define himself more. He has seemed very tentative so far– but let’s hope that’s because he’s planning a really excellent campaign.
A Fox News poll conducted April 6-7 had Kerry ahead of Bush by a statistically insignificant hair: 44% to 43%.
Kerry, it seems to me, has to say something big and significant about the war–and soon. This time around, unlike in 1992, it is not just “the economy, stupid” that people are worried about. They are worried a lot about the economy, yes; but they’re also worried about the war and what it portends for the economy and for many other facets of American life. (Like the physical safety of close family members in Iraq, or like civil liberties at home.)
What would I advise Kerry to say?

I’d advise him, firstly, to adopt a quietly “experienced” posture. He has a distinguished personal military record, and a lot of experience from having sat on the Senate Armed Services and Intell Committees; and he should not be ashamed to show that he–unlike W– knows what he’s talking about when he talks about war-making and matters of strategy.
He’s already gotten off to quite a good start in this direction, by surrounding himself with service veterans at many campaign stops. But he should go further, do more to underline his very real experience in strategic affairs– plus, his real concern for the fighting men and women themselves.
Secondly, he should say that though there were serious differences among people of goodwill over the original decision to launch the war against Iraq, now the war has been long launched and has been going on far too long already. Therefore, the task now is to find a way to bring it honorably to an end in a way that is stable and provides enough satisfaction to all parties.
He can position himself as a “clean slate” person, someone with no prior fixed brief either for or against the war, but whose primary concerns are now:

• to stop the bloodshed and destruction inside Iraq;
• to find a political formula inside Iraq that provides a stable and hopeful future for all Iraqis;
• to lay the basis for a new global compact based on the rule of law in international affairs, in which the U.S. works constructively with a broad array of international allies, which
• is the only effective way to build the multi-cultural global coalition that’s needed if the communities that currently condone the activities of terrorists who are in their midst are to start to repudiate them.

This last point–that the best way to combat terrorism is to work to reduce to insignificance the size of the communities that are prepared to condone the actions of terrorists–is one I’ve been thinking about for a few years now. Maybe I should develop the theme into a decent-sized article sometime.
Pursuing a condoning-reduction or preferably a condoning-elimination policy does, of course, involve actively reaching out to listen to the concerns of the condoning communities. And you know what? Very often they do have some pretty pressing and valid concerns. Every effort should be made to address their valid concerns satisfactorily. What is so wrong with this?
Well, it would mean reaching out to a lot of angry Muslims and Arabs, and trying to engage them in a constructive, problem-solving dialogue. Is this “appeasement”? No, it is just showing the members of these communities–the vast majority of whom are not themselves actively engaged in terrorism–that we are prepared to treat them with respect and dignity and to engage with them in the common human venture of problem-solving dialogue.
That, surely, is by far the fastest way to reduce the constituency of those prepared to use anti-humane violence in pursuit of their political goals.
And right now, it surely looks like a better path to follow than continuing with “the Fallujah option”.
Can we expect Candidate Kerry to follow such simple and logical advice? I guess the days ahead will show us more about his approach. I see that today, he gave a speech in Wisconsin that was focused on Iraq. In it, he said:

We come here today, first and foremost, to say to our troops how proud we are of them, how grateful we are for their service to country, and how much we support them even as they carry out a difficult task and a difficult policy. No matter what our feelings about the war, we support the troops.
Leadership also requires that we ask the right questions and that we put forward the right policies for our country…
[W]e ought to be engaged in a bold, clear, startlingly honest appeal to the world to see the interest [in a stable Iraq]. And we should be engaged in the diplomacy that is prepared to share, with all of those other countries that we need to come to the table, the decision-making and the responsibility, and that is how we will resolve this issue.
So it is my hope that in the days ahead and let me make it clear: We must be successful. No one’s security is advanced by a failed Iraq. But we deserve an effort that maximizes the opportunity for success and minimizes the spending of American dollars and lives in the effort to achieve what is, after all, in the interests of people all across this planet.
So I hope that in the days ahead common sense and humility will begin to emerge in the approach of our nation and our policy so that we do not see month after month of these images and difficulties. And the president needs to explain to the American people: Who are we turning power over to on the 30th of June? What will we be protecting on the 30th of June?

Well, that’s not bad for a start. But he could still be quite a lot bolder than that in arguing for a new kind of power-sharing between the US and the rest of the world. Let’s see!