Here's Thomas Oliphant's thoughtful piece on Kerry's comments about the Iraq war. Stick with this. It has a surprise for you as it was for Oliphant.

Pride, truth and war according to Kerry

By Thomas Oliphant, 7/13/2003

WASHINGTON -- JOHN KERRY helped bring a war home last week, not unlike the way he helped bring another war home more than three decades ago.

His political mission was different this time - to make the messy, murderous aftermath of war in Iraq redeem the sacrifice it entailed. Last time it was to end a disastrous adventure in Vietnam before any more people had to die for a hideous mistake.

But at the end of a revealing political day, he linked the two as we talked, using the word ''pride'' that had punctuated an important public statement and a comprehensive interview at The Washington Post.

Pride, he had said earlier, is the logical explanation for the Bush administration's continued unwillingness to lead NATO and the United Nations into Iraq as our partners - not simply to save a few bucks or share the danger, but to make sure the mission succeeds over time and that the world's security is enhanced.

And pride, he reminded me, is the logical explanation for half the names on the black tablets of the Vietnam memorial, young people who died while politicians lied.

Last week, events here and in Iraq have underlined just how long and deep and costly US involvement in Iraq is going to be. They also exposed how myopic and self-defeating the administration's unilateralism has become in the face of this daunting task, and how few of the hard truths about the task and its costs are being shared with the public.

As someone who helped form the broad American coalition supporting the use of force last year, Kerry did not do so by inventing weapons programs Iraq had abandoned or never attempted, or creating connections with Al Qaeda that never existed, or manufacturing an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry did so in the belief that at some point rogue nations in the post-Cold War with aggressive records and intentions could not be tolerated.

He made ''truth'' an important word last week as well. The war is continuing, the repair and reconstruction of Iraq is proceeding at a snail's pace when it proceeds at all, and for the job ahead international support is imperative. Kerry said the things George Bush should be saying.

I continue to be struck by something else in Kerry's rhetoric that is worth quoting:

''The Bush administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the people in the greater Middle East retribution but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

''What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.''

Increasingly common words today, but Kerry spoke them more than six months ago, two months before the war began. Like others, I gave him guff then for seeming to fudge his support for the use of force; but also like others I failed to see the power of his thinking about the link between conflict and aftermath. On this, Kerry was more than prescient; he was speaking with the clarity expected of presidents.

Last week, Kerry also brought the perspective of his military service into play - not as boast but as useful experience. It helps, he said, to see the need for truth ''from the perspective of those in the field who are taking fire even as they do not know friend from foe, who have no idea when they will come home.''

More pointedly, Kerry made his case for truth not solely for the country's sake and its standing in the world, but ''most of all for the young people in uniform who cannot be protected from enemy attack by an announcement, no matter how well-staged, that hostilities are over.''

If Kerry discusses domestic affairs with this force and clarity, he will win his party's presidential nomination next year. This is a remarkably wide-open, multi-candidate race in which content and message will win.

That is why Kerry's ability to cut through the fog and use his gifts and background to speak clearly and forcefully about Iraq is of more than passing interest.

The challenge, as he put it succinctly to me, is to ''punch through'' on domestic issues in the same way. He has the policy material to do it; now the message must follow.

One big Kerry advantage in a crowded field is the under-noticed fact that no segment of the Democratic electorate is vigorously opposed to him or any of his ideas. That's a start, but the bigger challenge is to provide ordinary people with a reason to be for him.






__________________________________________________________