uruloki’s lair

The primary issue here is of course the War on Terror, and how to approach it. I have severe issues with a candidate for Commander in Chief that does not believe that an attack on American soil heralds the opening shots in a war. Of course, simply using 9/11 as the opening shots ignores Beirut, the embassy bombings in Africa, Somalia, and the USS Cole (just as the top four examples). Treating Islamic terrorism as a police matter directly led to 9/11 and where we are today. President Bush has at least talked the talk about dealing with terrorists and their supporters, and some of the walking has been done.

Kerry has said “Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America’s relationship with the world.” Taken in combination with his earlier statements that “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations,” I can only assume he plans to turn over control of the world’s most powerful and respected military to the military laughingstock of the world, France.

In contrast, President Bush has worked within the framework of the United Nations but has not allowed them to have veto over the national security decisions which have had to be made. We have worked with old allies (Great Britain, Australia, Honduras, etc.) as well as new allies (Poland, Latvia, Pakistan, etc.) in addressing a threat to not only our security but Europe’s as well. Those who become used to the idea of America as pushover during the 1990’s (France, Germany, Iran, the Taliban, Saddam, etc.) have had to recognize and deal with a intrinsically different mindset. They have not always been successful, and that scares them. Little wonder that they want a President who is willing to talk for hours/months/decades with them while not doing anything substantive.

President Bush has had his failures on the foreign policy front as well. Again from Spoons:

U.N. (Iraq): Let U.N. delay Iraq war for 15 months after Bush told us, Time is not on our side. Is this why were not finding WMDs? What did the delay cost us?

Israel/Terrorism: Continues to deal with the Palestinians, even though they have not lived up to their commitments to stop terror and have not elected new leadership not compromised by terror, and despite his promise that he wouldn’t deal with them until he did.

Saudi Arabia: Bush too close to Saudis, Abdullah. Pretends they’re partners in war against terrorism. In reality, theyre on the other side.

Additionally, he has dropped the resolution to protect all U.S. troops from war crimes prosecution, and continued a U.S. policy of complete incompetence when it comes to illegal immigration. Probably his greatest failure in this respect is one of his greatest personal strengths. He has a tendency to be very loyal to those you work for him, looking out for them for longer than is necessary. And by necessary, I don’t mean that he won’t drop them as soon as they are political liabilities, but rather until they are political albatrosses. Nowhere is this more evident than in the State Department, who responsible for promulgating his foreign policy through the world. Instead, we have situations such as that in Turkey before the war kicked off: leaks about negotiations publicly humiliated one of our staunchest allies in the region and directly led to the removal of that government (democratically, but the present ruling party is far less friendly to us). Even at an individual level, Bush has rewarded diplomats who have criticized him in front of fereign delegations.

With regards to where we are today, heavily involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, I do not believe that a President Kerry will unilaterally pull our troops out as the Spaniards did after al Queda elected a new government there. However, what will happen will be almost as bad. Our support will slowly diminish, and the “rhetoric” will be reduced. As our enemies see that, they will take heart that their original assumption of America being a paper tiger was correct. In the face of increasing attacks and threats, President Kerry would accelerate the process, leaving the nascent democracies to be strangled in their cribs by Iranian backed jihadists.

We have begun a war not only on terrorism, but on its supporters as well. It is that focus on terrorism’s infrastructure of sympathizers, money, and training locations that is allowing us to have the success we are currently enjoying. If our goal was simply the terrorists, we would be content with lobbing more cruise missiles into Afghanistan in the hopes of hitting a few of them and their camps. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban would still be al Queda, and the case could be made that Pakistani (or Iranian, by way of Russia and Pakistan) nukes would be in the terrorists’ hands. We must continue this war on terrorism’s supporters, and we cannot do that by treating it as a law enforcement matter.

This is the single largest difference between the two candidates. President Bush is a war president, albeit a reluctant one, while a President Kerry would be a policeman president. As Kim Du Toit said:

Lest all these little quibblers have forgotten: we are at war. And the only way we’re going to win this war is by not handing over the keys to feckless Democrats, ever again.

Next, the candidates as people. Too bad for them, I hate people.

Tags: Politics //