Kerry's Dovish Position Might Not be an Issue

Andrew Sullivan summarizes Kerry's stance on the war gleaned from the senator's presidential nomination acceptance speech:

"No mention of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. No mention of the terrorist forces that are amassed there. No reference to the elections scheduled for January. No mention of Iran. And the whole point is about process - about how to wage a war, not whether it should be waged. This is a man who clearly wants the U.S. out of the region where our future is at stake, and who believes that simply by taking office, other powers can somehow pick up the slack. Memo to Kerry: no other powers can pick up the slack. They don't have the troops or the technology or the will. His strategy is pure defense. This sentence is his strongest threat: 'Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.' So let's wait, shall we? "

Clearly, in the war on terror, Kerry will be reactive, not proactive. He will be waiting, not forcing the issue. In short, Kerry will prove to be weak.

But I think that the Bush Administration is in real trouble.

Why? If an attack were to come about (highly likely), then the Democrats can make the point that the current administration cannot protect America. Bush loses. If no attack comes about (which I really hope for), then Kerry's weakness in defense falls out of the national consciousness and Kerry can try to win with his other policies.

It's easy to win as a dove when there is no need for a hawk.