Babbling Brooks

David Brooks has an op-ed piece in the New York Times that seemingly takes John Kerry to task for offering a plan in Iraq that the media has been on him to announce. It's a throwaway piece, full of deceptions, as Pandagon has already demonstrated.

Here's my favorite part from Brooks:

Substantively, of course, Kerry's speech is completely irresponsible. In the first place, there is a 99 percent chance that other nations will not contribute enough troops to significantly decrease the U.S. burden in Iraq. In that case, John Kerry has no Iraq policy. The promise to bring some troops home by summer will be exposed as a Disneyesque fantasy.

More to the point, Kerry is trying to use multilateralism as a gloss for retreat. If "the world" is going to be responsible for defeating Moktada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then no one will be responsible for defeating them. The consequences for the people of Iraq and the region will be horrific.

There is also an equal chance that Bush's "stay the course" policy will continue to be the failure it has been. It is clear that Bush still has no Iraqi policy to speak of. He continues to claim things are getting better when it appears everyone else know they are not. More disturbing about Bush's lack of plan should be that he is the guy who is actually in charge, the guy who gets these briefings from our intelligence that warns of civil war. I would think Mr. Brooks would be more distraught over that.

Secondly, Brooks suggests using "the world" to be responsible in the war on terror means that no one is responsible. Kerry doesn't fell that Iraq and terror is just our problem, but that it is the world's problem. And he feels the world should shoulder more responsibility in this battle. We've heard the numbers, that we bear 90% of fiscal and casualty costs for this battle. It's astounding.

Kerry doesn't want to cut and run from Iraq at the first chance. But he's not blind to the abject failure the Bush Administration has created over there. If he wanted to pull our troops out, he'd just say he'd do it. No plan. No care. He'd just state "our boys are coming home." Instead, Kerry does present a plan. He's looking for solutions, not excuses.

What is the big difference between the Kerry plan and the Bush plan on Iraq? Simple. Kerry has one. And that is the most important step. Then it can be tweaked and tuned to the times. I thought I heard Kerry say today there is no way of knowing what kind of mess he will inherit next January if he takes office. At least he is thinking forward on how to deal with it.