Greg Djerejian has an interesting post about his concerns with a potential Kerry administration. The end of the article is a thoughtful critique, but I disagree with the initial chain of reasoning for the simple reason that opposition to a particular war isn’t necessarily a good indicator of a man’s moral worldview:

I do think, however, that he’s made my case for supporting Kerry in the case of the Iraq war:

Put differently, I want someone in power who believes that our values (when linked to tangible interests of import) might be worth fighting for–even with painful expenditures in blood and treasure occasionally necessitated–in the furtherance of human advancement and liberty.

Saddam was a monster–can anyone deny this? Of course, we committed many missteps in the post-war–but the Iraq project could still ultimately prove a success. If it did–would we not all rejoice that an Arab democracy took root in Mesopotamia–a democracy that would replace a neo-Stalinist thug of the most brutish stripe?

We might fail, yes, and at great costs to the stability of the region and American credibility worldwide. But I think the risk of failure is lower with Bush in for a second term than with Kerry winning in November. For Bush, I believe, thinks there is something worth fighting for in Iraq. Kerry, I suspect, would have us do what he counseled re: Vietnam. Get out, and let the locals sort out their difficulties, as they will be better off without us.

He could be right, of course (that, all told, the Iraqis would be better off without us–though the specter of horrific and large-scale inter-sectarian revanchist killings makes that hard to believe). But I think (despite too few troops, Abu Ghraib, the situations in Najaf and Fallujah) that we can still turn Iraq into a success (defined as a unitary, viable democratic polity).

This effort, of course, needs to unfold within the larger context of a generational committment in the Middle East on a variety of levels (forging an Arab-Israeli peace settlement; better public diplomacy, economic development). But, arguably most of all at this juncture, it means seeing Iraq through. Would John Kerry? [emphasis added]

At issue, of course, is whether Bush will commit to the “larger context” he describes above. And, that he not only commits to it, but executes it competently without further damaging international relationships or busting our budget into little pieces (remember, funding for Iraq and Afghanistan military operations isn’t in the White House’s 2005 budget proposal). Djerejian writes as if Bush hasn’t had an opportunity to improve his public diplomacy or economic development or work on the peace process since the war. I was reminded today that I was still living in Boston when the big war demonstrations happened in Boston. I was still in Boston when the Mission Accomplished banner was hung on that carrier.

The other problem is that the need for better public diplomacy, more robust engagement in the Middle East peace process, and economic development was obvious before the war even started(!). To imply that the Bush admin will just flip a few switches and suddenly be able to execute those needed changes seems, well, overly optimistic. It could happen, but I’m not willing to make a bet that it will happen. Especially if Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are still key advisors for Bush.

The potential incoming Kerry team also gives me some confidence that our policies come January 2005 will not be that of Spain. I think Djerejian’s concerns about Kerry pulling out immediately are somewhat valid (there are many Americans who would welcome that). In the end, though, his advisors will indicate that it would be wrong to do so. The foreign policy team that looks like Kerry might settle on have some sensible career diplomats who get the state of the world, the state of threats to the U.S., and the underlying causes of Islamic extremism. Journalist Laura Rozen has an enthusiastic evaluation (hey, she admitted it was over the top) of a potential Kerry cabinet and she was kind enough to post criticisms and supporting comments from readers. You can find more at the LA Times or by simply punching in Kerry Foreign Policy Team into Google.

The “larger context” Greg Djerejian mentions isn’t secondary to standing firm in Iraq, it’s THE priority if we want to succeed in Iraq. Iraq will not be successful if the components of that larger context are not addressed. It will be interesting over the next few days to see if the Bush campaign addresses these concerns at the convention. It would be a nice to hear them actually talk meaningfully about these concerns.