We have just reached a horrible milestone: over 1000 servicemen and women killed in Iraq, after an invasion that should never have occurred. This sorrowful reminder provides an opportunity for John Kerry to consolidate his message regarding his commitment to our national security and to our servicemen and veterans. It also provides an opportunity for him to show that this has been a
consistent concern of his since he volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam and became an anti-war leader after his return.
John Kerry could make both his stump speech message and his ad campaign resonate with American voters by showing that his concern, from 35 years ago until the present day, has been to serve our country, to ensure our national security, and to provide for our soldiers both while serving and afterwards. He should not go back on his anti-war statements but rather show them to be part of his consistent, decades-long concern with both our nation's security and with the men and women who shoulder the primary responsibility for ensuring that security.
Specifically, he should concentrate on the following points:
- Fight the right war with alacrity and perseverance and do not allow us become embroiled in the wrong war, whether Vietnam 40 years ago or Iraq today. Bush was late in taking action in Afghanistan (it took him two months!) and then took his eye off the ball there because of his baseless obsession with Iraq (quote Tommy Francks to Bob Graham from Graham's new book), thereby allowing Osama bin-Laden to slip away and the Taliban to reform and regain its strength. Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq has created a haven for terrorists -- where it was a Middle Eastern secular oasis with an absence of terrorist activity before -- and has created so much enmity toward the U.S. that it has recruited far more terrorists than it has taken out of action (show the paragraph from the report by the nonpartisan International Institute for Strategic Studies showing that 18,000 more members have been added to the ranks of terrorists over the past year). It would also be effective in an ad to have a clip of a recently retired military officer noting that many in the Pentagon foresaw at least a year ago that Iraq would become another Vietnam. (I have a friend, a political science professor specializing in peace-building in the Balkans, who has given several briefings at the Pentagon and shared with me last year the concerns of colleagues there.)
- Value and protect the lives of our men and women in uniform. Kerry's concern is now, and has always been, the lives of our men and women in uniform. Kerry will put our military personnel into harm's way only to protect our country, not for unsupported, politically-motivated reasons. Furthermore, he won't send them into the line of fire without the proper equipment, unlike George Bush, who sent our men and women to Iraq with insufficient modern body armor months before he sent to Congress the appropriations bill. Because of Bush's callousness regarding our troops' safety, they were given unarmored Humm-V's and the military chose to provide the limited modern body armor only to regular enlisted personnel, while Guardsmen and reservists serving and fighting beside them were given Vietnam-era armor (see optruth.org). While Kerry tries to save military lives, Bush cavalierly sends them into the line of fire with deliberately distorted evidence, and then is the first president who won't allow their coffins to be photographed and who doesn't have the common decency to attend the funeral of even one fallen soldier out of the 1000 who have been killed over the past year and a half (the ad, of course, should also mention how much time Bush has spent on vacation during the same period).
- Provide for the needs of our servicemen and women and for their families. An ad should show several specific examples of how the Bush administration has consistently shown disregard both for our soldiers under fire and for their families facing hardship back here at home: a) Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion Iraq appropriations bill unless Congress removed the provision in the Senate version which expanded Tri-care health insurance coverage to reservists and Guardsmen and their families -- the provision was removed by the Republican leadership, with the result that the families of reservists and Guardsmen are under additional financial burdens (I'm betting that the already-awful figure of a median family loss of annual income of $1500 under Bush's presidency is even higher for the families of Guardsmen and reservists); b) Bush tried to roll back combat pay and away-duty stipends last year, and is trying the same thing again this year; and c) our returning soldiers have a higher unemployment rate (6.9%, although I can't remember the source) than the national average. In other words, the Bush administration has shown a consistently callous disregard for the lives of our men and women in uniform as well as for the health and welfare of both them and their families. These figures could be contrasted with footage of Kerry criticizing the lack of adequate veterans' services for returning Vietnam War vets, as well as bits of current Senate floor speeches and his unblemished voting record on veterans' issues.
I could go on, but I think the idea is clear. Over thirty years ago, Kerry volunteered to serve his country, he served it honorably, and he fought to protect his brothers-in-arms both in Vietnam and in Washington upon his return. He's still fighting for these same principles:
• fight only when we need to, then fight with intelligence, speed, and perseverance;
• protect our soldiers; and
• provide for our military and their families.
These themes will especially resonate with the families of Guardsmen and reservists. A woman who called in to Randi Rhodes this week said that all the reservists' families she knew were voting for Kerry. These poor people are being shafted so badly by this Administration that it makes me sick. Nothing could show more clearly that Bush is exactly the same as he was 30 years ago ... and so is Kerry.