VodkaPundit

Required Reading

John Kerry might have a bigger problem with Iraq than even George W. Bush does:

In the past few weeks, Mr. Bush has, with the help of the United Nations, identified Iraqi leadership that appears to have sufficient domestic and international legitimacy to assume sovereignty after June 30. The next phase of the transfer of power has won unanimous endorsement from the Security Council. The Group of 8 summit meeting last week, however, showed that our on-again allies were reluctant to move beyond lip service to much real aid, either in the form of troops or Iraqi debt relief.

For instance, Senator Kerry says NATO should assume a greater role in Iraq. This prospect is blocked by a stubborn president, but not the one named in Mr. Kerry’s critique. Rather it is President Jacques Chirac of France who rejects a NATO role.

Mr. Kerry also said that the allies would find it difficult to contribute without greater cover from the United Nations. We now have it. Why can’t Mr. Kerry find it in his heart to express a modicum of disappointment with, say, the Germans, who for months have vowed not to provide troops even with United Nations endorsement, even if NATO authorizes them to do so?

Kerry’s problem, explains Peter D. Feaver is that much of Kerry’s Democratic base simply isn’t interested in a solution to Iraq — unless you call pulling out and blaming Bush a solution.

Feaver points out other problems as well, which is why I suggest you read the whole thing.