The only thing I care about in Kerry's Speech is foreign policy. I think that ought to be the key question in this election, and I think it is important enough to trump almost anything else. (I say almost to forstall the more outrageous but not relevant hypotheticals).
I'm not as discouraged by what I see in his speech as I might be, but I'm not particularly encouraged either.
I know what we have to do in Iraq. I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.
And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
This is generally pretty discouraging. The focus is all wrong. The goal in Iraq is not to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer and reduce the risk to American soldiers. Those are laudable side effects of the goal, but they are not the goal. The goal is something along the lines of: set up and aid a regime in Iraq which in the long run can set a good example for the region and help deal with the problem of Islamist terrorism (through a large variety of different means.)
Also, the tepid response of our allies in the allegedly clear case of Afghanistan (including repeated and successful French obstruction in posting more NATO troops in Afghanistan) suggests that such allies are very unlikely to do much in the much less clear case of Iraq.
The last line I quoted is a bit odd. I agree with the sentiment that we need to get the terrorists before they get us, and that alliances will help that IF AVAILABLE. Maybe I'm parsing too closely, because it sounds like an IF/THEN statement which suggests that we can't get around to 'getting the terrorists before they get us' until we spend a lot of time rebuilding alliances.
I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response. I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops - not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct antiterrorist operations. And we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists.
I'm heartened by the 'more troops' and end the 'stop-loss'. I'm not encouraged by the "not in Iraq" phrase. When combined with the "get the job done and bring our troops home" phrase a bit further above, it gives the impression that we should be leaving Iraq soon. That is a very dangerous position. Believing that we should never have gone to Iraq is one thing. Believing that it all should have been handled differently is ok too. But believing that we can pull out now or any time in the near future is a totally different thing.
A good opposition can argue that Bush ought never have put us in this position. But we are in fact there. We cannot now leave Iraq to chaos--and that is exactly what would happen if we pulled out any time in the near term (and by that I mean 5-10 years minimum). So either Kerry is unrealistic about bringing the troops home, or he is unrealistic about the consequences of bringing them home.
In these dangerous days, there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals.
We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to, not just feared.
We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation, to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world.
We need a strong military. And we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.
I like this rhetoric. It is absolutely correct. But when paired with the above quotes it creates a worrisome impression. I worry that he is confusing ends and means. Strong alliances are a great means to do something if they are available. They are a silly ends, and if they are not available you often must act anyway.
It is a question of balance. I will freely admit that in my estimation Bush has not been able to strike an ideal diplomatic balance between the utility of drawing support and the need to go alone if the support isn't forthcoming. But Kerry's history suggests that he strikes the balance too far in the other direction. He seems very unwilling to go it alone, so despite rhetoric to the contrary, it seems possible that the US could fall prey to UN vetos of vital action under Kerry. This worry is strengthened by Kerry's seemingly unrealistic expectations about how forthcoming European support would be under his administration and how much support could be available even if Europe were interested. Europe wasn't too interested in enforcing inspections in 1998 under Clinton. That forced Clinton to 'go it alone'. Does anyone think Kerry has more diplomatic skill than Clinton?
And the front lines of this battle are not just far away, they're right here on our shores. They're at our airports and potentially in any city or town. Today our national security begins with homeland security. The 9/11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans and the 9/11 families. As president, I will not evade or equivocate, I will immediately implement all the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting 95 percent of our container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America.
And this is where I really worry. The problem is not that the ideas are bad. But the focus is awful. Nuclear and chemical plants cannot get enough protection. It isn't possible. We need to implement defensive measures, but we cannot rely on them. Defensive measures in reality are imperfect no matter how hard you try. The whole problem with terrorism is that in a free society (and possibly in any society) you can't construct a perfect defense, so whenever possible you have to catch or kill them before they attack.
I would feel a lot better about Kerry if that was his focus.
The whole premise of this post is what beguiles me. I can only assume something like this is written as camouflauge when the real question is: What has our current President done right where foreign policy is concerned?
This has been 4 years of bad ideas and worse execution, followed by a groundswell of dislike (and worse) from the world community. Am I safer than I was a year ago? - in what alternative universe? Al Qaeda has GROWN, subdivided and gone deeper underground, not shrunk while our military has become depleted and exhausted. North Korea is more problematic than it was 4 years ago and AIDS has continued it's mushrooming swath across the world unabated.
I trust Kerry's daughters with foreign policy before I would consider 4 more years of this gang that can't shoot straight. The question posed in your article Sebastian should be : Could Kerry possibly be worse than Bush?
Posted by: wilfred | July 31, 2004 at 09:35 AM
ZZZZzzzzz....
"We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.
But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military -- but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds."
Posted by: carsick | July 31, 2004 at 09:40 AM
"To do all this, and to do our best, demands that we work with other countries instead of walking alone. For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent. In this entangled world, we need to build real and enduring alliances.
Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden."
Posted by: carsick | July 31, 2004 at 09:42 AM
Noce job on this Sebastian. At a certain point we need to assume that questions about Kerry are not partisan and really do want better information about his plans. That is all part of the campaign process. I would hope Kerry would learn as he goes and even change his mind if he realizes his focus was off kilter.
We cannot now leave Iraq to chaos--and that is exactly what would happen if we pulled out any time in the near term (and by that I mean 5-10 years minimum). So either Kerry is unrealistic about bringing the troops home, or he is unrealistic about the consequences of bringing them home.
I think Kerry has said more or less the same thing you note in your first line. I trust him to not bring the troops home too early. I also trust him to bring them home as early as he can and still meet that first goal.
Posted by: Edward | July 31, 2004 at 01:10 PM
"Noce" is not a word I know....I meant "Nice"
Posted by: Edward | July 31, 2004 at 01:11 PM
"The only thing I care about in Kerry's Speech is foreign policy. I think that ought to be the key question in this election, and I think it is important enough to trump almost anything else."
I'd love to see Bush and Republicans follow this line of thinking (especially considering the past electoral success of elder Bush's neurotic focus on foreign policy), which is apparently shared by 39% of the public.
Time Poll conducted SRBI Public Affairs. July 20-22, 2004. N=1,000 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Which of the following issues is most important to you in deciding how you might vote for president in November? . . ."
The economy 28 %
The situation in Iraq 21 %
The war on terrorism 18 %
Moral values issues, such as gay marriage and abortion 16 %
Health care 12 %
Other (vol.) 2 %
Unsure 3 %
Posted by: sean | July 31, 2004 at 01:38 PM
Sebastian,
You should not worry so much about the tone or the emphasis or the focus of a single speech or a single paragraph. The war on terrorism and the Iraq War pose a variety of problems and policy questions, and so Kerry will have to address more than one issue. I don't see how you can fault Kerry, for instance, for making the true statement that we should be doing more to protect our chemical and nuclear plants. If you listen to the rest of his sentences, it's clear that he does not have a defense-only plan for dealing with terrorism.
You may agree more with Kerry's focus on Iraq on his website, where he says "John Kerry and John Edwards will make the creation of a stable and secure environment in Iraq our immediate priority in order to lay the foundations for sustainable democracy." He goes on to promote greater participation of allies in Iraq as means to "end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation" and "provide real security for the Iraqi people" (via training of Iraqi security forces), among other things.
Also, you should be sure to examine Bush's intentions for Iraq just as critically. Has he given any indication that he believes that we will need to keep our troops in Iraq for "5-10 years minimum"?
Posted by: Dan | July 31, 2004 at 05:18 PM
I'm pretty much in reasonable agreement with what you've said here, Sebastian. (I'm weasel wording because I'm pained, tired, and not obsessively analyzing every phrase -- you know, like normal.)
But, while I anticipate voting for Kerry, I think your cautions are, as I scan them, valid.
I don't know what Kerry will do, and I have some fears. I also don't know what Bush will do, and based upon performance, I have greater fears.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 01, 2004 at 05:58 AM
I think Gary just wrapped up the sentiment that will bring Kerry this election.
"I don't know what Kerry will do, and I have some fears. I also don't know what Bush will do, and based upon performance, I have greater fears."
Many moderates, both liberal and republican, and independents seem to be coming to a similar conclusion.
Incumbents have the job to lose. Often times, challengers just need to show they can handle the job.
Posted by: carsick | August 01, 2004 at 08:04 AM
I'm not surprised by Gary's comments, although I think he lacks a litte sense of history. Notwithstanding, the Kerry Doctrine
Some where Henry Wallace is smiling whereas Harry Truman is turning in his grave.
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | August 01, 2004 at 10:25 AM
The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to.
You need to parse "have to" a bit here to imagine the outcome you suggest Timmy.
We "had to" invade Afghanistan. Our security demanded it. We "wanted to" go to war in Iraq, our security did not demand it.
I think Truman would get that.
Posted by: Edward | August 01, 2004 at 10:45 AM
Harry S. Truman, Radio Broadcast to the American People, September 1, 1950
"Seventh: We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States. We are arming only for the defense against aggression."
Posted by: Katherine | August 01, 2004 at 10:58 AM
"My name is General Tony McPeak.
I'm a fighter pilot, a Vietnam veteran and was our Air Force Chief of Staff during Desert Storm. There is absolutely nothing I take more seriously than the safety of our soldiers and the security of our country..."
...
"This is deadly serious work and you may be wondering why I'm so sure John Kerry is the man for the job. After all, when I retired from active service, I registered as a Republican. In 1996, I played a role in Senator Dole's Presidential campaign in Oregon. And, as I said, in 2000 I was a Veteran for Bush. By the way, I have now re-registered as an Independent, but anyway, for me, the security of our country is not a partisan issue...
...
"War is a team sport. We built the team that won World War II. We put together the great team that won the Cold War. That's why what has happened over the last three years is such a tragedy, such a national disaster. Rebuilding the team won't be easy."
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=102-07312004
Does General McPeak hate America?
Posted by: carsick | August 01, 2004 at 04:10 PM
Carsick, Who said anything about hating America? Other than the Islamists anyway? BTW we did not as a country build the team that won WWII. We resisted until bombed by the Japanese.
Dan, "If you listen to the rest of his sentences, it's clear that he does not have a defense-only plan for dealing with terrorism."
That is exactly what is not clear. In fact I quoted almost the entire foreign policy section of his speech and most of it is defense oriented, as I outline above. And that is what deeply worries me. This can't be won on defense. It can't be won with a primary focus on defense. A free society protect itself from this kind of threat defensively. Hiding away in the corner (even if we could) wouldn't make the Islamist terrorists go away. And we can't protect everything all the time. It just isn't possible.
Edward:
Do you agree that it is highly unlikely that we can both bring the troops home and meet that goal anytime in the next four years? If yes, and Kerry knows that, why does he make so many statements that suggest otherwise?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 01, 2004 at 08:20 PM
Sebastian
Are you saying that WWII was being won before we got involved? I just posted the general's comments so you'd have to argue your point with him but your statement implies that WWII was being won before we got involved yet the general's comment seems qualified by the "team that won".
Maybe just semantics.
Posted by: carsick | August 03, 2004 at 09:43 AM