Iraq, the issue most likely to ignite fire in tomorrow's debate, has become the chief symbol of differences between presidential candidates George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.
Bush cites Kerry's positions on Iraq to portray him as an indecisive flip-flopper on strategic issues. Kerry says Iraq demonstrates Bush's arrogant misuse of U.S. power.
Iraq also best illustrates their disparate worldviews. Bush advocates preemptive strikes -- leading alone in defiance of U.N. allies if necessary -- to prevent potential future threats. Kerry gives preference to international diplomacy and collaboration -- and burden-sharing of physical and financial resources -- in a globalizing world.
Yet, for all their squabbling on the campaign stump, both presidential candidates actually share a common commitment to Iraq -- and have many of the same long-term goals. They have both pledged to keep U.S.troops in Iraq for years, acknowledging that a modicum of stability is a prerequisite for leaving. They have both identified rebuilding the Iraqi army as the key to an eventual exit strategy. And they both accept U.S. responsibility in helping reconstruct the strategic oil-rich country.
"The differences are less than meets the eye, and there's really not much difference on how to handle day-to-day combat," said Geoffrey Kemp, a Reagan administration National Security Council staffer now at the Nixon Center. "It doesn't matter who is president -- they face the same short-term crisis to secure Iraq so elections can be held." The main differences, which play out on at least six key questions, are how they would achieve those goals and where Iraq fits into broader U.S. foreign policy. The most fundamental difference, which in turn shapes all other aspects of their policies, is the context of the Iraq war.
Bush believes U.S. intervention was justified as part of the wider war against terrorism, an essential part of the reaction to the al Qaeda attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. "My message is that we will stay the course and stand with these people so that they become free. It's in our national interest we do so. I believe this is a central part in the war on terror," Bush said in his joint news conference last week with Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi. "I believe that when we succeed in Iraq, that America will be more secure."
Kerry, in stark contrast, says the war has undermined U.S. strategic goals and safety. "Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battles against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions, and if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight," Kerry said last week in a speech at New York University. "Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it."
The second major difference between the two candidates' proposals is in the role of the international community. In his four-point plan outlined last week, Kerry incorporated a greater role for allies, including countries originally opposed to military intervention, in every aspect of postwar Iraq. That includes providing more troops, possibly in low-risk roles; helping train Iraqi forces, at facilities both in and outside Iraq; assisting in the costs, burdens and benefits of reconstruction; and participating in preparations for democratic elections. Kerry also wants NATO to adopt Iraq as it has Afghanistan, its first mission outside Europe, as a global mission.
"We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all-time low," Kerry said last week. He called for more coordination with allies "so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone."
After initially defying the United Nations' refusal to endorse war, the Bush administration has also increasingly appealed for more international troops and aid, help with training Iraqis, as well as more U.N. assistance with elections. "Because all nations have an interest in the success of a free Iraq, I urge all nations to join in this vital cause," Bush said last week.
So the two campaigns now often echo each other on calls for international help. The question, some analysts say, is who would have the best chance of getting it. Bush has so far been unable to rally more cooperation, while Kerry says his more collaborative approach would elicit help. "Kerry is not as radically different from Bush in anything he's proposing now. But Kerry is not Bush, and that by itself makes a world of difference," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution fellow.
But other analysts say Iraq has deteriorated to the point that greater international help may not come no matter who wins the presidency. "The dilemma for both candidates -- particularly Kerry, who is hanging his hat on this -- is that the United Nations has said it will not increase its presence . . . and Paris and Berlin reiterated that no matter how the election comes out, they don't intend to send any troops," said James Hoge, editor of Foreign Affairs magazine.
The candidates differ slightly on timing. Bush has made an open-ended commitment to Iraq, while Kerry calls for U.S. troops to be withdrawn within four years.
Kerry calls for recruiting thousands of trainers to rebuild Iraq's military and police, while the Bush administration is emphasizing how many have been trained so far.
On reconstruction, Kerry wants to shift the emphasis to labor-intensive projects to generate local jobs and bring "tangible benefits" to Iraqis, with less going to major U.S. corporations for large infrastructure items. The Bush administration's five-point plan calls for "continuing to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure," although the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is looking for ways to get aid into local Iraqi programs.
The candidates also have nuanced differences over what Iraq means for the future and the region. Since the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, Bush is now "wedded" to the idea that Iraq is the key to the larger goal of bringing democracy to the Middle East on a "fairly fast timetable," Hoge said. Kerry has indicated that he would be content with stabilizing Iraq but would place less emphasis on reforming neighboring governments.
Each man faces challenges selling his position, analysts say. The violence and volatility in Iraq make Bush vulnerable. But Kerry has his own hurdles.
"The easy part is making the case that Iraq is not going as well as the administration had hoped," Council on Foreign Relations fellow James M. Lindsay said on the council's Web site. "The hard part is persuading people that he has a policy that is any different from the administration's, and that it's likely to work."
