Comparing the Candidates on Iraq

Gregory Djerejian of Belgravia Dispatch has produced a superb analysis of how George Bush has handled Iraq so far, compared with how John Kerry would have done so. Citing this interview with noted foreign policy scholar Walter Russell Mead, Djerejian combines justifiable criticism of the Bush Administration with some damning analysis of John Kerry's comments on the subject. His key point:

Don't get me wrong. Kerry might have done a few things better here and there.

But, I'd wager, the biggest difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq is pretty simple. It's that Kerry would never have gone to war with Iraq in the first place (despite all the tough talk, war authorization vote, etc)

Now, you might think that's great.

But for those of us who think, given what we thought the intel was at the time, that it was a necessary war to wage in the post 9/11 era--that's ultimately the big difference between Kerry and Bush you should focus on as you make your pick come November.

So, back to Walter Russell Mead's grades. If Bush got an A for effort on Iraq--what would Kerry merit? Oh, say a C-/D+ in my book. And, as the effort grade is likely so pitiable, well--there's really no point in giving a grade to Kerry on 'execution' or 'achievement' is there?

I mean, there wouldn't really be anything to achieve.


Please read it all.