Can someone defend Kerry's treatment of our allies?

One of John Kerry’s main claims is that he’ll do a better job of coalition-building than Bush. I think this may actually be true, though perhaps for different reasons. But it’s pretty damned hard to find evidence for it in his campaign.

First, we have the repeated dismissals of the US’s coalition in Iraq as (paraphrasing) a collection of small unimportant countries. This would be a stupid thing to do even if it were completely accurate – Presidents are supposed to stand there with a straight face and say they value the aid and support of East Buttfickistan. But ISTM that essentially announce before you take office that you consider Japan, Korea and most of the EU to be worthless is pretty damned undiplomatic.

Second, we have the Kerry campaign’s suggestion to Australia that they shouldn’t have helped us in Iraq. Assuming that damaging John Howard wasn’t the goal here, how exactly does this message do anything but undermine support from one of our top allies?

And finally, we have today’s response to Allawi. I’ll be the first to agree that Bush probably timed this visit for his political advantage, not the nation’s. He’s a politician too. But the responsible and diplomatic thing for Kerry to do is show up in Congress (it is still his job), applaud when Allawi is introduced, and show respect for the visiting head of state. If he was really smart, he’d have publicly requested to meet with Allawi --“After all, I’ll have to work with the Prime Minister after I win the election” – and Bush would be hard pressed to deny it. Kerry gets a photo-op where he looks presidential, and after the meeting Allawi (being a politician himself) says something vague about how Kerry is wise or impressive or some such. Kerry ducks the question about not supporting the war, and just says that PM Allawi is the right man as we move forward, yadda yadda yadda.

But no. Instead Kerry instead chooses to imply that Allawi is A) a tool of Bush and B) a liar. Once again, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant; for better or worse, we’re up into our ass in Iraq and will be for some time, and this is the guy nominally in charge there. He may well win an election there, and President Kerry would have to work with him for several years if he did. Of course being labeled a tool of Bush won’t help Allawi with that; what it will do is lend support to candidates who are anti-American. Smooth move, senator.
This is not about Bush. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, I probably won’t vote for him this year, and frankly I think he hasn’t treated our allies as well as he should either. And yes, all of this can be papered over; that’s what we hire diplomats for. But how are we supposed to believe Kerry is some farsighted wizard of diplomacy when he seems to go out of his way to shit on foreign leaders whose support he’s going to need if he actually wins?

  1. Cite for the slagging off of allies as useless? I see the Kerry campaign saying that most allies aren’t really present at the moment. I see a lot of discussion of the Coalition as being a coalition in name only, with 90%+ of the troops and 90%+ of the casualties being American.

  2. Well, they Kerry campaign didn’t suggest anything to Australia, Kerry’s little sister did. And I haven’t seen it in any paper or on any TV news coverage (and I regularly read / watch a few) apart from your cite.

  3. Allawi is a tool of Bush and a liar and thus any criticism of him is fair enough. He knows exactly how far down the crapper his country is and chooses to lie about it to give political succour to Bush. It may make it hard to work with him in the future, I agree. But there’s a larger principle, and a larger practical issue, at stake.

Cite?

Yes, because we’ve carried out the war so stupidly, we’ve endangered (more than we had otherwise) those allies who have been kind enough (or stupid enough or pressured enough) to help us out.

[quote]
And finally, we have today’s response to Allawi.

[quote]

The linked article did not seem relavent to the issue. How far down do I have to read?

It’s Kerry’s goal (and moral duty) right now to defeat Bush, the big botcher of this war. Kerry’s winning will produce a better effect both for Iraq and the USA than his losing, and he’s got to point out Bush’s frickups in order to win. Sure, if we grant that he’s going to lose anyway, then he should just quit the campaign and perhaps become a special envoy for the President, traveling to that troubled region to sue for peace.

You haven’t provided any cites for the shitting.

Top of the head, he has referred to it as a "fraudulent coalition." Isn’t the same thing I know, I’ll look for a cite this weekend. Nonetheless, same effect; he’s telling allies that they are part of a fraud.

She was there as part of the campaign.

As mentioned, this makes no difference; the very soul of diplomacy is finding a way to work with people you despise.

Yes meaning you agree it undermined our international support? Well, glad that it doesn’t bother you.

I have no idea what this means.

Cite for Kerry calling any specific country “unimportant”? We need a quote, not a paraphrase.

That’s a complete mischaracterization of what was said (in addition to the misleading use of “Kerry campaign” instead of just coming out and saying that it was Kerry’s sister who said it.)

No that’s NOT what she said, as evidenced by the quote that immediately follows:

She’s saying that Bush’s “my way or the highway” attitude is what has endagered Australians, not just the fact that they supported us.

See, it works like this: Bush says, “Nyah, nyah - fuck you U.N.; we don’t need you.” Iraqi people see occupying force as a unilateral U.S.-led power grab. Iraqi people shoot at U.S. forces AND anyone who’s helping us, including Australia.

Kerry’s plan: Get U.N. involved. More international troops. Iraqi citizens see occupying force more as an international effort and eventually stop shooting at us.

She’s saying that WHEN YOU DO IT THE WRONG WAY, AS BUSH IS, it’s going to endanger our allies.
I’m not gonna register with the N.Y. Times for your other link.

As for our allies, if you read the papers, you’d realize that Bush ALREADY took a gigantic dump all over them, and they are really, really pissed. So no, disagreeing with Bush will most likely please our allies. Even the so-called “coalition of the willing” are dropping like flies. You need to face facts: the rest of the world doesn’t like what Bush is doing one single bit. Bush is never going to get the UN back on his side; he already burned that bridge. But Kerry may be able to, because he hasn’t done any damn fool thing like call them “irrelevant” yet.

As for Allawi, he is a puppet and only a transitional leader. The U.S. is calling the shots in Iraq, so I’m not sure what you’re afraid he’s going to do. But I take it you would have Kerry just smile and nod and agree with Bush and Allawi’s bullshit rosy scenario that everything’s just peachy keen in Iraq? How exactly is that supposed to get Kerry elected?

Uh, didn’t you notice that the war isn’t going well? One can only expect international support to lessen, and it’s not Kerry’s fault for pointing out what’s going wrong–whether he’s explaining things to Americans or our supporters overseas.

Your logic was faulty. The best thing Kerry can do for the USA and for Iraqis is to put the incompetent chimp out of office. Can you see that?

To do so, however, he must, in effect, weaken Bush’s position as a leader, discredit him. It is true that doing so hurts the war effort, absolutely! But that is the nature of a presidential campaign.

If we assume that Kerry is going to lose, then he should just keep is mouth shut, or even offer to help the prez out. But he’s not going to operate under that assumption.

No, it’s not the same effect. Before you said he called them “small unimportant countries”. The coalition IS a fraud. You want Kerry to ignore the truth? You haven’t shown that Kerry has insulted any specific country. I’m just not seeing your doom and gloom prediction that other countries are going to snub Kerry if he’s elected. Sorry, there’s only one candidate who “took a shit” on our allies, and it’s not Kerry.

You do know that Germany is an important ally, right? And how did GWB treat them?

But you see- Kerry can’t “treat our allies” in any way shape or form. He’s only a US Senator, and he has little to say on Foriegn policy.

And Allawi isn’t an “ally”. He’s a pawn & a tool. :rolleyes:

But we’re still waiting for a cite for your primary thesis= “repeated dismissals of the US’s coalition in Iraq as (paraphrasing) a collection of small unimportant countries”. So, far, instead of “repeated” :dubious: , you haven’t come up with ONE, you know, right?

The ally contributing the most to the US is the UK. Not a natural allegience, Labour and the Republicans. I can tell you that Tony Blair’s govt is none too keen on Bush either. Essentially, Bush promised Blair 2 things to get help get the UK onside:

  1. No invasion without a UN vote.

  2. Positive progress on resolving the Palestine/Israeli problems including taking a firm line on stopping West Bank settlements.

Once Blair had committed the UK to an unpopular war, the promises evaporated. It was a great political risk. You don’t do diplomacy like that.

No positive shine reflecting onto the Prime Minister is the situation in Australia too. The opportunity for a big payoff came with the US-Aust free trade agreement. A natural party-of-business initiative you might think. All John Howard needed was 1 thing. Free trade in sugar.

Had Howard achieved that he’d be a hero across a decisive swathe of Australia’s rural & marginal electorates. Instead Bush sold out on free trade and caved to his domestic farm lobby.

Now, I am surprised to see the war against Iraq is turning into a substantial issue that could instead lose the Howard govt the election. Which is in 2 weeks time by the way.

There is a real probability that good faith allegience with Bush will lead to a clean sweep of govts in Spain, Australia, Italy and the UK.

Good points and info, Sevastopol.

Thankyou Aeschines.

Kerry’s thought process?

  1. Iraq war bad.

  2. Anyone who supports the bad Iraq war is bad.

  3. Anyone who is bad, I insult

  4. Our allies are supporting the bad Iraq war, so I insult them.

  5. If elected, I will build a nice warm and fuzzy alliance with all the countries I didn’t insult. Yet.

Good post, athelas. Excellent satire of the complete lack of critical thinking among Bush supporters.

ROTFLMAO!

It wasn’t Kerry but some Robert Scheer who called the coalition in Iraq an "international coalition that amounts to a fig leaf named Tony Blair and a motley collection of nations one can buy on eBay.” Don’t know if that’s what he was thinking on.

Larger principle? You’ve got to be kidding! There’s an election to be won, and “Larger Principles” will lose Kerry the election if he’s not careful. The vast majority of voting Americans know what they know about Allawi based on what they see on TV. And what they see on TV is a guy in a suit, the head of his country, meeting with George Bush to talk about Very Important Matters.

This was Kerry’s opportunity to look statesmanlike and diplomatic, and to not cede the image to Bush. He blew it.

The time for principle and practical issues is after the beauty pageant is over.

Yeah, Kerry could have done more with that. However:

Allawi would not have met with Kerry, because he’s a tool of Bush.

And Rumsfeld isn’t calling him a liar, but he’s saying Allawi is wrong, too.

As conservative talking points go, this is pretty pathetic. That’s some amazing irony resistance, though.

Isn’t Robert Scheer a newspaper columnist? So you think furt is just conflating Kerry’s opinion with someone else’s? Wouldn’t surprise me.