As far as I can tell, Jim Hoagland's recent criticism of Kerry is more or less fair. Here is a sample:
The Pentagon's most painful problem in real life is not Moqtada Sadr or Kim Jong Il. It is closing any military base in Congressman X's district. Abandoning bases abroad is, by comparison, a piece of cake. The closing of installations in Germany is a necessary political prelude to the consolidation and reduction of bases at home in what is a rational, budget-driven exercise.I've yet to see a sensible criticism of the reduction and consolidation process that Rumsfeld is now putting into place. I'm happy to be contradicted (obviously!), but it certainly looks both sensible and long overdue. (Note: Of course, I can dream of more radical changes to U.S. military and political arrangements. But there is some point to asking how sensible various arrangements are given the main assumptions of the mainstream foreign policy establishment.)Despite the Kerry campaign charges that the reductions will disrupt alliance management, the specific reductions come largely at the prompting of NATO members and the South Korean government, all eager to regain valuable real estate and freedom from environmentally destructive military maneuvers. The changes have been under discussion for nearly two years.
I suppose Kerry feels obliged to criticize anything Bush does. But it's a pity, since this criticism might constrain him when - if - he gets into office.
Posted by Chris at August 22, 2004 12:30 PM