Monday, April 05, 2004

Tough Job: Folks at Centerfield are trying to coax Kerry into talking tough against our enemies. So far we've heard very little from the Massachusetts senator as far as attempts to rally the troops. Kerry shouldn't wait any longer.

Bush has spoken loudly with his past actions. But he hasn't given us a hint as to what the next steps will be. Sure, we'll eventually nab Osama Bin Laden, who apparently lurks somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But as for major combat and intelligence operations, Bush is silent.

With the current president lacking a plan, Kerry can take the initiative and tell us how he would guide us during the next phase of the war. This would make Bush play catch up, and any subsequent Bush plan would appear to be a reaction to Kerry, giving the senator the edge.

Right now, Kerry appears too aloof to be considered a strong wartime leader. His announcement that the war would mainly be an intelligence-gathering exercise contributes to the idea that this man is weak. But if Bush has already exhausted all of our combat options, then the president only has intelligence missions at his disposal -- which is no different than what Kerry is proposing. If that's the case, there may not be much of a difference between the two candidates' plans of action.

Andrew Sullivan is already mulling over a rebranding vote. We can take advantage of Bush's past strong military maneuvers, then put Kerry in charge to mop up while giving our European allies someone they can align with and not get kicked out of office.

That's an idea. But we also need to keep in mind that we don't know what challenges the next four years will bring. Granted, terrorism will continue to be the biggest issue. But we don't know how that will break.

Bush has proven to be a decisive yet divisive leader. His strength has united half the population while and alienating the other half. And the worldview of him is in the gutter.

But he has also done a lot of good by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and showing the cojones to invade Iraq and destroy a threat despite the queasiness of some parts of the world. Will we need that strength again, or will Kerry suffice?

In fact, Bush may have more trouble leading us into battle again, considering how unpopular the war in Iraq has become in some circles. Kerry may have more leeway in dispatching troops since he hasn't upset major foreign leaders -- yet.

But I'm hesitant to gamble our security on Kerry's indecisiveness. That's why he's going to need to say what strong steps he would be taking right now and what actions he would take in the future. Then we can have a true debate about which road we should take.