HOW HE SEES IT Growing weary over war rhetoric

By JOHN C. BERSIA
ORLANDO SENTINEL
During the past few weeks, I have watched more debates between presidential candidates than I would care to count -- and I am not referring simply to the three rounds of exchanges that President Bush and Democratic contender John Kerry just concluded.
Starting with John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, I reviewed parts of various debates up to and including this year's. And I have to say that for a number of reasons some of the earlier discussions left me more inspired and, to some extent, better informed than recent ones.
Consider the Kennedy-Nixon sessions, for example. Whether one sided with one or the other, viewers were left with the sense that either man was knowledgeable, articulate, presidential, prepared to tackle the Soviet threat and, thus, likely an able leader for his time. Such qualities were not only appealing but essential for a dangerous period of Cold War confrontation and looming conflicts in places such as Vietnam.
Unfortunately, those kinds of impressions from presidential debates, for me anyway, have diminished with the passage of time.
As a result, I find myself seeking more in 2004, especially a willingness by the main candidates to level with the American people on the most serious issues facing this nation.
Direct answers
Given a chance to comment on how much influence a president has in shaping the increasingly global, interdependent U.S. economy, both candidates during last week's debate avoided a direct answer. I wish they had started with a simple premise, that the question contained more than a germ of truth about the relative inability of American presidents to shape the economy beyond the margins.
I grow weary of hearing how former President Clinton led the most robust period of economic growth in U.S. history. In actuality, he presided over that period, encouraging the prosperity but hardly deserving credit for it. If George Bush had been elected president instead of Clinton, he would have been lauded for the 1990s boom -- and that perception, too, would have been erroneous.
Similarly, if Al Gore were president today, he would stand on the receiving end of criticism about the sad shape of the economy. In fact, business cycles and global developments have a far greater impact on the U.S. economy than a U.S. president.
Beyond that, no matter who was in charge of the White House on Sept. 11, 2001, the nation would have continued its economic wobble and plunged faster into deficit-spending as a result of a tragedy beyond the control of any American -- including the president. To make progress in the war against terrorism, this nation will likely continue to swim in red ink for some time to come, just as it did during the Cold War.
Of course, the strategy a president develops to deal with the terrorism fight matters -- greatly. With the right approach, a president stands to make a tremendous difference in the course of events. I have heard both candidates discuss their war-against-terrorism plans, but they basically amount to rhetoric without enough details, sound bites with insufficient substance.
A yearning
It's not that I question either man's sincerity in waging the war against terrorists, but I yearn for them to deliver messages that match the urgency I feel for a well-formulated, innovative, comprehensive strategy in waging a generations-long struggle.
Further, it would not discourage me for them to admit what leaders throughout history have learned: Terrorism ebbs and flows but never entirely disappears. Thus, for Bush and Kerry to talk in terms of conclusively winning the war against terrorism is misleading to the American people.
Finally, on Iraq, I would welcome the frank admission that not only has the U.S. strategy to date not worked but that a single sensible choice beckons: Crafting a strategy that will succeed. Given Iraq's location in a historically unstable region, the absence of a strong international presence that leads to pacification and stabilization will produce dire consequences.
It requires little imagination to project Baghdad's dissolution in the event of a premature withdrawal by U.S.-led troops. The disruption of a crumbling Iraq teeming with terrorists and other troublemakers would seep into neighboring Persian Gulf nations and eventually the rest of the Middle East.
The United States cannot allow such a disastrous development.
XJohn C. Bersia, who won a Pulitzer Prize in editorial writing for the Orlando Sentinel in 2000.