Editor's note: I don't think we have ever posted an article by William Safire in the past. This one is by him and our comments are about him. In one way or another, he has always supported the Neocon/Bush "war on terrorism" and his views have quite enough exposure in the New York Times without the help of Axis of Logic.  But we found this article by Safire to be of particular interest. If we were to re-title the article it would go something like this:

A study in hypocrisy: A Master Neocon attacking 'America's Newest Neocon' 

In this essay, Safire attacks and derides John Kerry for "outwarring" George W. Bush - a curious attack indeed! On the one hand, we agree with most everything Safire says about Kerry in the article.  In his statements throughout his candidacy for president and in the recent foreign policy debates with Bush, Kerry has supported the so-called "war on terrorism", arguing in the debates against Bush: "I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are". The statement reminds us of Bush's pre-war declaration that he would "smoke 'em out, track 'em down and kill 'em" - or something to that effect.

But what's more interesting to us is the simple fact that Safire wrote the article. Here we have a well-known neocon writer with a penchant for war, telling us that Kerry claims he will be a better warrior than Bush. Is Safire complaining? Is he implying that he is opposed to the, "war on terrorism"? ... the war on Iraq? Hardly. Safire makes his position clear:

"Kerry’s belated but welcome hawkish call to ‘change the dynamics on the ground' supports the joint U.S.-Iraqi seizure of control of that terrorist haven. It will be bloody, but such use of firepower in "serious" denial of sanctuary should save lives in the long run."

Safire's statement invokes memory of the pretzel logic used by the U.S. government for dropping the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in WWII and "destroying villages to save villages" in Vietnam - more killing to save lives.

Just what is William Safire's complaint in this diatribe on John Kerry?  Is it a complaint? Is he celebrating the fact that the only two presidential candidates are both committed to more war, occupation and killing? It's anyone's guess.  But with Safire's last statement in the article, we are in complete agreement:

"[John Kerry's] abandoned antiwar supporters celebrate the Kerry personality makeover. They shut their eyes to Kerry’s hard-line, right-wing, unilateral, pre-election policy epiphany."

- Les Blough, Editor

Tuesday, October 5, 2004

By William Safire, New York Times

WASHINGTON As the Democratic Whoopee Brigade hailed Senator John Kerry’s edge in debating technique, nobody noticed his foreign policy sea change. On both military tactics and grand strategy, the newest neoconservative announced doctrines more hawkish than President George W. Bush.

First, on war-fighting in Iraq: Hard-liners criticized the Bush decision this spring not to send U.S. troops in to crush Sunni resistance in the Baathist stronghold in Falluja. American forces wanted to fight to win but soft-liners in Washington worried about the effect of heavier civilian casualties on the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and of U.S. troop losses on Americans.

Last week in the debate, John Kerry — until recently, the antiwar candidate too eager to galvanize dovish Democrats — suddenly reversed field, and came down on the side of the military hard-liners.

‘‘What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground,’’ Kerry volunteered. ‘‘And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of Falluja and other places and send the wrong message to terrorists. You’ve got to show you’re serious.’’ Right on, John! Although he added his standard softener of ‘‘sharing the stakes’’ with ‘‘the rest of the world,’’ he issued his radically revised military policy: Wipe out resistance in terrorist strongholds like Falluja, which requires America to inflict and accept higher casualties.

Just as Kerry propounded his get-tough tactics, the first phase of the assault on centers of insurgency had begun. U.S. troops, blazing the way for recently trained Iraqi forces, have kept their appointment in Samarra. More than 200 insurgents have been killed or captured in that city in the Sunni triangle, beginning to open the area for elections.

At the same time, America’s aerial strikes at the safe houses of Zarqawi killers in Falluja have intensified. Kerry’s belated but welcome hawkish call to ‘‘change the dynamics on the ground’’ supports the joint U.S.-Iraqi seizure of control of that terrorist haven. It will be bloody, but such use of firepower in ‘‘serious’’ denial of sanctuary should save lives in the long run.

Next, to grand strategy: Kerry was asked by Jim Lehrer, ‘‘What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?’’ In the past, Kerry has given a safe never-say-never response, but last week he gave a Strangelovian answer: ‘‘The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike.’’ He pledged never to cede ‘‘the right to pre-empt in any way necessary’’ to protect the United States.

But in embracing his right to pre-empt — always derided in horror by the two-minutes-to-midnight crowd as impermissible ‘‘preventive war’’ — Kerry felt the need to interject: ‘‘That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.’’

Hold on. Nuclear pre-emption was never America’s ‘‘great doctrine’’ during confrontation with the Soviets. Washington’s strategic doctrine, which some of us remember, was at first ‘‘massive retaliation,’’ later ‘‘mutual assured destruction.’’ Maybe arms control negotiators listed pre-emption or preventive war as a dangerous notion of extremists, but only kooks portrayed by the likes of Peter Sellers called for a nuclear final solution to the Communist problem.

If Bush had defined pre-emption as such a ‘‘great doctrine throughout the cold war,’’ we would have seen sustained snickering on cable and horrified eye-rolling from the Charles River Gang.

Bush did not pick up on Kerry’s faulty memory. Instead, the president focused on the Democrat’s sugar-coating of his first-strike pill of prevention: his assurance that his pre-emption had to be one that ‘‘passes the global test’’ to make it legitimate. By ridiculing Kerry’s notion that such a surprise attack had to have prior world-public approval, Bush was able prevent his opponent from out-hawkishing him.

On stopping North Korea’s nuclear buildup, Kerry abandoned his global-testing multilateralism; America’s newest neocon derided Bush’s six-nation talks and demands the United States go it gloriously alone. And in embracing Wilsonian idealism to intervene in Darfur’s potential genocide, Kerry’s promise of troops outdid Pentagon liberators: ‘‘If it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I’d be prepared to do it.’’

His abandoned antiwar supporters celebrate the Kerry personality makeover. They shut their eyes to Kerry’s hard-line, right-wing, unilateral, pre-election policy epiphany.

E-mail: safire@nytimes.com