Kerry and Allawi, redux

This might have all markings of an interblog feedback loop, but bear with me.

Earlier today Zach Wendling of Hoosier Review linked to my post from yesterday, which quoted both Iraqi PM Allawi's speech before the Joint Session and Sen. Kerry's reaction. Zach found this bit noteworthy:

Note that the dateline on the story is Columbus, Ohio—in other words, the Democratic candidate could not be bothered to attend the Joint Session, would not deign to speak with the Iraqi PM himself, and most certainly will not admit that his continual slandering of the mission in Iraq, and of the allies who have gone the distance with us, is having a pernicious effect.

To which commenter T. Bailey replied:

“Slandering the mission… is having a pernicious effect”? Recent message-creep toward trying to stifle reasonable criticism by hinting that it gives aid and comfort to the enemy or otherwise might cause our mission to fail is absurd. Maybe Mr. Perez-Miller can specifically tell us what pernicious effect he's referring to? Maybe he can also prove slander while he's at it.

I suspect that Bailey wants me to prove slander according to the legal definition (rather than by the more informal usage), which of course I cannot. Even so, I maintain that the actions of Kerry and his surrogates are having the claimed effect.

One of the few consistent characteristics of the Kerry campaign is denigration of our allies—not those countries whose support the Senator lusts after (perversely limited to the Franco-German axis), but those who stand with us now. Just last week, for instance, the candidate's sister told Australians that their support of the Bush administration is endangering them. This is twice-over ignorant and misguided: first, because Islamists have a grudge against Australia because of that country's role in the liberation of East Timor, which predated Iraq by several years; and second, because said Islamists will eventually target any nation that is not Muslim or otherwise content to play the role of dhimmi.

Then, of course, there is the Senator's continual charge of Administration “unilateralism”, and the snide reference to our allies as a “coalition of the bribed and coerced”. Apparently, the shed blood of Brits, Australians, Poles, Dutch, Italians, and others from a score of other nations is that of—what—mercenaries? frightened conscripts?

Commenter Bailey has already answered this charge in part: Kerry has no official diplomatic standing, so any damage to relations with the aforementioned allies remains hypothetical. I agree, especially as it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the Senator will ever attain the Oval Office.

Nonetheless there is one ally in Iraq whose welfare he is impacting now—namely, that country's interim government. Whether one favored last year's invasion or no, it should be clear that the best outcome will be for the January 2005 elections to proceed as scheduled, so that a permanent and representative government will be established. And presidential candidates—regardless of party affiliation—ought to affirm their support for that goal, as it is not only in Iraq's best interests, but our own.

Has Kerry done that? No: indeed, thus far this week alone he has impugned Allawi's integrity; asserted that Saddam's removal was a mistake; and implied that he would begin withdrawing troops almost immediately upon taking office.

Call these positions what you will (this week's flavor, perhaps), but what they are not is a strategy for achieving stability in the Land Between the Rivers. Instead, they signal a disposition to quit Iraq before victory can be assured—in short, to make the comparisons to Vietnam self-fulfilling.

And that, Mr. Bailey, is called giving encouragement to the enemy. Calling such conclusions “absurd” is not an argument; it is an attempt to rule opposing views out of bounds.

Let me close with two questions:

1. Is the increase in terrorist violence in Iraq as we approach the November election coincidence?
2. Who do the insurgents favor to win here, six weeks hence?

These are not idle questions. If you find the mere asking of them offensive, perhaps it is because you will find honest answers inconvenient.