De-deployment

John Kerry came out today against the troop withdraw plan that Bush had proposed on Monday.

Kerry singled out for criticism Bush's plan to cut 12,000 of the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea.

"Why are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea a country that really has nuclear weapons?" Kerry asked.

Kerry quoted Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona as saying that North Korea is probably more dangerous than since the end of the Korean War in 1953. "This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time.," Kerry said.

Kerry argued that Bush's policy would dangerously reduce forces at a time when the nation is fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network in 60 countries across the globe.

"Let's be clear the president's vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war on terror," he said. "It in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel. It doesn't even begin until 2006 and it takes 10 years to achieve. And this hastily announced plan raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitments than it provides real answers."

Dave Pell provides the best response:

It makes sense for Kerry to criticize a plan if he sees problems with it. And it makes sense for Kerry, in doing so, to remind the public that he has served and therefore has a deep understanding of military issues.

But I am concerned about the constant flow of counterpunching. I know part of this is just the nature of running against a bully-pulpited incumbent. But I'd like to see Kerry on the front page pitching a plan on a topic that no one in the Bush campaign wants to deal with. In other words, I'd like to see team Kerry not only win the debate, but frame it.

I think, though, the problem is not that Kerry hasn't proposed any new plans (see raising the minimum wage, the tax credit for American jobs, and the fuel efficiency proposal, to name a few), but that the Bush campaign has not yet risen to take the bait on any of Kerry's proposals, choosing instead to distort facts surrounding them. Unless, that is, Pell means to say that Kerry should propose more specific foreign policy proposals, in which case I agree with him completely. The strategy seems to be to allow world event's to weigh on Bush rather than put him on the defensive in a policy debate.

Oh, and Kerry is not the only one to criticize the Bush plan. General Wesley Clark has spoken out against it, as well as this piece in the Washington Post.