Wrong. There is what Kerry says, and then there is what Kerry does. The two are WORLDS apart. Sorry, STRATFOR, but banking on a position taken by John Kerry in the midst of a presidential campaign without looking at his 20-year record is like, well, taking the word of a mad-man like Saddam Hussein.
I'm always interested in Friedman's views. I just received his book today "America's Secret War." Very interesting.
While it is tempting to compare Iraq to Vietnam, the more important comparison, which everyone seems to miss, is to SOMALIA.
It was our withdrawal from Somalia that emboldened all of our enemies. When your enemy is beyond reasoning with, all he will understand is useless death. This is what needs to be visited upon all islamofascists. Withdrawal, or any kind of "Spain Syndrome", will only lead to more attacks and more intransigence.
And who do you think would be more likely to withdraw from Iraq, the ghosts of his Vietnam guilt harrying his every move?
It seems that Friedman has put himself in a box of his own making. Why he believes Kerry would be forced to prosecute the war rather than piss away the strategic advantage, Kerry's natural inclination, is not stated.
The ONLY evidence of Kerry's willingness to get tough against terrorism are his words. Even those times that he talks tough about Iraq and terrorism are amply contradicted by some other crap he spouts off about.
Friedman has a lot invested in his theory that Dubya is not engaged in nation building even when it is apparent to the world, i.e., A'stan.
I don't have any confidence at all that Kerry would be a good war leader or be forced by reality to persue the Bush strategy. I have no idea why Friedman thinks otherwise.