August 06, 2004
All Allies, All the Time
Kerry puts the cart before the horse.by Jonah Goldberg

In one of my favorite episodes of M*A*S*H, Hawkeye and Trapper John were desperate to procure a medical incubator. They found their way to a corrupt supply sergeant who had three. The sergeant explained that he couldn't give the docs one of his incubators because, if he did, then he wouldn't have three anymore. He'd only have two, and two is worse than three.

This seems like the perfect metaphor for the "Kerry Doctrine." With the constant promises from almost every speaker at the Democratic convention that a President Kerry would create "strong alliances" as his backdrop, John Kerry declared this week that he will pursue a "more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."

You know some Kerry handlers cringed when the word "sensitive" slipped out of Kerry's mouth. "Sensitive" isn't one of the adjectives most people want describing America's war on terrorism. It's like promising weapons systems "softer than a baby's bottom."


Regardless, for Kerry the vital issue is playing nicely with others. The New Republic's Peter Beinart recently wrote, "Intellectually, Kerry knows he must show he'd go after the terrorists with a vengeance. But that's not where his heart lies. The topic that arouses his greatest passion — the one that has guided his entire career — is improving America's relations with the world." In his 1997 book, Kerry called for the creation of an "entirely new, multilateral code of behavior." In 1993, during the confirmation hearings for Warren Christopher, Kerry called for "an all-out effort to strengthen international institutions." Two years later, Kerry broke with many Senate Democrats and voted against lifting the Bosnian arms embargo, mostly because he wanted Europeans to like us. The Washington Post reported that when Bill Clinton called America the "indispensable nation" in his second inaugural address, Kerry lamented Clinton's "arrogant, obnoxious tone."

And, Beinart notes, "even the 1991 Gulf war, which Kerry's aides now cite as a model of multilateral cooperation, struck him as suspiciously unilateral at the time." Back then, Kerry said, the anti-Saddam coalition "lacks a true United Nations collective security effort, with the full measure of international cooperation and burden-sharing."


This is all consistent with liberal rhetoric for the last three years. How many times have we been told that George W. Bush "squandered" the good will of the world "community" after 9/11? The assumption behind all of this seemed to be that anything which cost America the support of allies like France or Germany was, in effect, too costly. In other words, the means — "strong alliances" — are more important than the ends — winning the war on terror, toppling Saddam, and so forth. Listening to these folks, one gets the sense that America's greatest foreign-policy triumph was to get sucker-punched on 9/11 because it resulted in sympathetic newspaper headlines in Paris and Berlin.



Consider Kerry's seemingly final explanation for why he voted for a war he now condemns Bush for waging. He says he wanted Bush to have the authority to go to war in order to build up a mighty coalition to oust Saddam. But he says he didn't think Bush should actually go to war without such a coalition. Now that we know there weren't any obvious, imminently usable stockpiles of WMDs, that case looks better today than it did then. But Kerry deserves little credit on that score, since he too was certain that Saddam had such weapons.



Still, I agree that a mightier coalition than the one we had would have been nice. Indeed, if President Bush could have enlisted that indestructible ghost army from the third Lord of the Rings movie to do our fighting for us, that would have been really great. But, in the real world, Kerry's position puts the cart before the horse. Was the goal to topple Saddam and secure the WMDs, or was the goal to get a bunch of folks to do it with us? Indeed, Kerry thought the first Gulf War Coalition couldn't meet Kerry's standard.

Now, there is one caveat to the Kerry Doctrine of international hand-holding. If America is attacked, he says he wouldn't hesitate to respond with force. That's nice, I guess. But what else is he going to say? "If America is attacked, I promise to play Boggle in the Oval Office!" He makes it sound like he's the first president to have the courage to commit to a policy of retaliation to attacks. Has any president actually rejected such a policy?



Kerry promises "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." Again, great. But no major candidate has ever promised to do otherwise. More importantly, the U.N. wouldn't need to have a veto over our national security with a President Kerry in office, since no situation obviously meets his standards for force except a direct attack. Kerry's like the sergeant from M*A*S*H who doesn't care what the incubators are supposed to be used for, so long as they're never used. For Kerry, no goal is worth losing allies, because keeping allies is Kerry's only goal.

Question: How does one fight a more sensitive war on terrorism?
Will we call the terrorists freedom challenged?
Will we call the suicide murderers miss(ile) led virgin seekers.
When we bomb the heck out of them will we send candy down just before the bombs? Or will the candy just explode as they eat it?
How ridiculous to try and fight a war sensitively.
How about thoughtful? Let's all be thoughtful. Bush was thoughtful for 6 minutes after he was told of the WTC attack and was criticized by Kerry. What makes Kerry so better when it took him 40 minutes before he could even think between the second trade center hit and the hit on the Pentagon?
My Gosh all he would do is think.
Kerry is bad for the U.S.

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

I think what Kerry means by a "more sensitive war on terrorism" is he and Chirac will walk hand-in-hand into the sunset as they discuss what leftist position should be taken. But your questions are all good. Do you think any reporter will have the b-a-l-l-s to ask him to explain that comment? And make him actually explain it.....instead of going off on one of his flowering, billowing, empty, nothingness speeches of his? I doubt it. But that will be a great question for the debates.

When I saw it.

I'm certain that during their sunset walk on the beach, they'll be sipping pina coladas, complete with big paper umbrellas...no manly drinks for these guys.

BTW, did you notice how John Kerry even said of Bill Clinton after his second innauguaral address....that it had an "arrogant, obnoxious tone." All because Clinton had said America is an "indespensible nation."

I guess John Kerry believes we are "despensible."

I'm telling ya: the man scares me!!! He really doesn't seem to think too much of his country. And I think he would sell us out in a NY minute.

to the highest female bidder.

Catz

For that, Catz, he's my idol!!!

On a more serious note, it is indeed nice to have allies and have others believe in your cause. But killing terrorists is even nicer.

I need a rich woman, very badly...do any of you qualify...I want to be just like Kerry - financially I mean

As a current resident of Canada, I can tell you - Canada would be more then happy to help out in Iraq right now in a Peace keeping role. The reality is I believe many Canadians, along with many other countries in the world, feel alienated by Bush. The US would do much better with allies then without, and I don't believe it will happen under the current administrations foreign policies.

I'll give you a specific example: Immediately after 9/11, the majority of US planes were diverted to Canadian airports. A lot of people (as you know) were stranded, and had no where to go. All Canadian cities opened up Hot lines for residence to take in US passengers and the outpour was incredible. I myself tried to call in a 1/2 hour after the hotline opened only to be told that they had too many offers and to send water and blankets to the airports instead. As I was working at the airport at that time, I was amazed to see how many people were bringing food from home for those who choose not to leave the airport - not too mention toys, water and blankets. Shortly after, our fire fighters raised 10's of thousands of dollars to send to ground zero, not to mention the thousands of police officers and fire fighters that volunteered to help out. It wasn't even a second thought for anyone - Canada was just helping their neighbors.

But then Bush came out with his Address to the Nation ( the one in Congress). Aside from practically making out with Tony Blair - he thanked EVERY OTHER country in the world except Canada. He acknowldedged the moment of silence by Cairo, Seol and Africa but never mentioned that Canada held the largest international vigil in Ottawa. I'm sorry I know the moment was about the victims, but when you see the countries that are listed in the transcripts there's no question that it was intentional. And I'm sorry, but as Canadians were also among the dead as a result of the twin towers collapse, it was a slap in the face.

Shortly after, when Canada refused to join the US in Iraq - That's when the ties began to sever. Did Bush ever address to the nation (or the press for that matter) that eventhough Canada didn't join the fight in Iraq that they sent the majority of their troops to help find Osama? Canada Saying No to Iraq had nothing to do with not wanting to help their allies- they just wanted to exhaust their limited resources where they felt it was needed the most - catching the monster responsible for 9/11. But again - I believe Bush burned that bridge but it never burned how Canadians feel about Americans.

But anyhow I digress, I just wanted to demonstrate how allies could help in the fight against terrorism, and Canada would definitely be one of them

__________________
Truth is by nature self-evident, as soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear. Gandhi

How about actually killing the fricking terrorists and not a thousands of innocent woman and children. Would that be to wimpy for you. Or does cluster bombing civilians and blowing the appendeges off small children for no apparent reason make you feel manly?