Learning something new: controversial and very brilliant military strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map, has a blog. Turns out he is a disappointed Kerry supporter and has concluded that the Kerry campaign is a loser.
[T]he Dems have made two fatefully bad choices in this election by choosing to focus on tactics (kill terrorists) and operations (defend America) instead of real strategy (beat the enemy to the finish line). They have selected downer subjects, where Kerry's sophisticated understanding of things actually works against him, leaving Bush to exploit the high ground, where his simplistic-yet-very-sincere delivery works like a charm.I have said it before and I will say it again: the more optimistic candidate wins national elections, and despite the great mishandling of the Iraq occupation by this administration, ... their mindless alienation of allies around the dial, and the growing sense of strategic despair both have created throughout far too much of the U.S. military, Bush and his campaign have managed to seize the high ground of both grand strategy and an optimistic vision of the future, leaving Kerry and the Dems to mutter about how "we'd do it better if we had the chance."
Arguing methodology over content when it comes to grand strategy is a loser-plain and simple. On that score Karl Rove is kicking James Carville's ass, leading me to believe that the only way the Dems will reclaim the Clintonesque ability to push a Reaganesque sense of forward-looking optimism will be to move beyond Kerry's badly managed campaign and go with the other Clinton in 2008.
Tip via NRO's Kerry Spot
There's more, so read the whole thing. It's thought-provoking, as is always the case with Barnett.
Posted by Alan at October 22, 2004 06:57 AM