An integral part of Kerry’s “plan” (I use the term loosely, as he does) for Iraq is to call upon his deep diplomatic skills to entice into existence a “real” coalition — unlike the measely collection of 30 or so ragtag countries like Britain, Italy, Australia, Poland, etc., who make up the coalition of the bribed and coerced that we have now.
If Kerry really want to build a bigger, better coalition to “win” in Iraq, he should be pleased at the landslide victory John Howard just won in Australia. (Via InstaPundit) His opponent promised to withdraw Australian troops; Howard promised to continued his steadfast support.
But wait. If Kerry really wants to maintain a coalition to fight in Iraq, why did he support Howard’s opponent? From The Australian of Sept. 18:
JOHN Kerry’s campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government’s support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.
Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.
“Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels,” she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.
Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: “The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta — I would have to say that.”
Ms Kerry, who taught school in Indonesia for 15 years until 2000, is heading a campaign called Americans Overseas for Kerry which aims to secure the votes of Americans abroad — including the more than 100,000 living in Australia.
Maybe it’s just that Kerry was against a coalition before he was for it.
