Clarification
A quick comment may help to clarify my comments on Bush's military initiatives.
I was supportive of the war on the Taliban because it was clear they supported Bin Laden, and I believe we have no choice but to engage the "war on terror."
Such an engagement does not, however, necessarily infer an invasion of Iraq, which invasion worries me for its long-term implications for a) our relationship with Islam, and b) the ability of moderate Muslims to influence Islam constructively. Muslims I know are to a man voting for Kerry in this election, or supporting him if they cannot vote. Whether or not the emnity is justified, it is real.
Reagan managed his international conflicts almost without firing a shot, because he had patience and was committed to "peace through strength." I don't know what our current president has committed himself to except "protecting America."
posted by Dick McMullen at 9:44 PM
3 Comments:
I am still not convinced that "Kerry has some good ideas" or that his approach is anything except "whatever Bush says is wrong, whatever it takes to get elected is right."
On Iraq I have heard ZERO contributions by Kerry/Edwards that constitute an original idea or even a regurgitated idea with some merit. Ok, that is a big claim, let me back it up.
Kedwards clam 1: The War in Iraq was wrong/Big mistake
I start with this one because it is as close as they will get. This argument is not a reason to vote for them, however, it is only a statement that Bush did something wrong. Additionally, their justification is suspect. Whether Saddam Huisain was a horrible despot who needed to be removed is not a question, the only question is whether we would be better off with him still in power. We know now that he did not have WMD, but that information was not available at the time, we know that he did have plans to get sanctions lifted, only to build weapons again. We know that the oil-for-food program was simply enriching his own pockets and certain pockets in the UN, France and Russia, and leaving his people to starve. And most importantly we know that he was sponsoring terrorism, and had been in open and active defiance of any sort of peaceful norm for 10 to 15 years. There was no hope for a peaceful solution. The war was justified.
Kedwards Claim 2: That the war has been poorly run.
This is also possible. Yet their solution is to put a ton more troops on the ground, while at the same time they want to bring all of the troops home. The rest of their solution is based on magic: to magically train troops, (doing something other than what we are doing now?) to bring in the UN and other countries so that we don't have to spend as much or committ as many troops, even though he admits that other countries will not want to help, to have a summit....
This is not a solution. There is no significant difference between his solution and the status Quo.
Kedwards Claim 3: We have alienated the rest of the world.
This is their most dangerous argument, because it implies they would do differently. Kerry's internationalist/idealist perspective is worth examining carefully. He would sign the International Criminal Court (subjecting US troops and leaders to lawsuits from anyone in the world who dislikes us, without any US power over the proceedings) He would have let France and Russia halt the war in Iraq, simply because they did not agree with us. (Now we know that they were getting a ton of money under the table from Saddam, but even if that was not the reason, thier wrath is not a good reason to make such decisions.) When I look at the foreign policy concensus of the EU and countries in the UN I shiver. Israel is always wrong, and Arafat is hailed as a hero. I have a hard time thinking of a decision made by the french government with which I can agree.
I could go on, but I am starting to ramble. I guess what it comes down to is that Bush's foreign policy has not been perfect, but in my opinion he has been faced with a lot of lose lose situations and given the circumstances he acted well. In terms of the election, though it is important to compare him to his opponent, who has only made me more worried the more he speaks. So I challenge you, can you outline what Kerry will do better than Bush?
And don't get me started on North Korea...
Just to continue this one-person discussion, check out http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005746
This guy seems to agree with you to a certain extent, but argues that Bush has the substance to warrant re-election, even if Kerry might be more thoughtful.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home