(Very)Concerning Kerry

Having read Kerry's speech I was deeply unimpressed compared with the kind of a**-covering 'soft-hands' social-democrat speechmaking that Tony Blair comes up with regularly when it counts.

There were holes in Kerry's so-called tough talking defence policies that any non-Democrat would seek to explore.

When Kerry pledges to the armed forces that 'You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.' you want to ask him if he expects to be able to anticipate at all times what 'winning the peace' will involve. Until he knows, presumably, his hands will not act.

When Sen Kerry says 'I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President.', you just want to say, yeah, what about the bit in between those two?

The classic, meanwhile, is where

'And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.'

is closely followed by

'I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.'

You are left with 'pre-emption yes', 'pre-emption, no', and 'pre-emption maybe'. I say 'maybe' concerning the last phrase because it's not enough to say that you will give no nation or international institution a veto over US national security- no-one expects that, even of Kerry. What they're worried about is that schmoozing with the French might take the place of action until it's too late.

When Kerry says 'We will add 40,000 active duty troops not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure.' it sounds as though these will be assembled in a grand 'horse's door' formation that Kerry will be able to shut when the terrorist horse has bolted.

When Kerry says 'As President, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.' I feel convinced of nothing except that he is adopting the scatter-gun approach to policy making- never mind the quality, feel the width.

Obviously the Andrew Sullivan answer to the points above would be that when in power Kerry will have a different demographic to deal with than the one he addressed in his speech, since he will have moderate Democrats and the Republicans to negotiate with regarding the war on terror. Unfortunately, in the realpolitics of public utterances, some of the things Kerry has said cannot be unsaid, even if you're Mister Nuance himself. These holes of contradiction are not only interesting for friendly British observers and undecided US voters: the men of terror will be fascinated.

On the above concerns, and others, Arnold Kling has gone to work. (via Glenn)

Belmont Club also gets into whether Kerry would act pre-emptively- and decides no- at least, and I think this is crucial, not effectively.