What would Kerry Do?

[CCTAU 3,536]

Kerry's pre-emptive war policy

Tony Blankley (archive)

February 18, 2004 |  Print |  Send

Consider the following hypothetical situation. In September 2005, the president is informed by his CIA director that they have concluded there is a one in two chance that North Korea will transfer five nuclear bombs to bin Laden within the next month, and that after the transfer, despite our best efforts, the CIA judges that it is more likely than not bin Laden will succeed in detonating at least one of them in a major American city, resulting in one to three million deaths. Should the president consider taking pre-emptive military action? And let's assume that the president is named John Kerry.

Returning from the hypothetical to the current reality, Senator Kerry and the Democrats have severely chastised President Bush for advocating and practicing pre-emptive war. In a major foreign policy address at Georgetown University last year, Mr. Kerry said that the Bush administration relies "unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations." Two months ago, at the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry accused President Bush of being "enthralled by the idea of preemption and American military might ... " Virtually across the board, the Democratic Party's national leadership has condemned President Bush's September 2002 National Security Strategy Document, which embraces (where justified) preemptive military action.

Also, not only Mr. Kerry and the Democrats, but most of the major media have harshly criticized the president for going to war in Iraq without having proof beyond a doubt that Iraq then had weapons of mass destruction. And yet, I would hope that a notional President Kerry confronted with the hypothetical described at the beginning of this column would not stand by his -- and his party's -- purported policy on preemption and certainty.

It makes fine campaign rhetoric to proclaim that he will never "take America into war" without absolutely certain intelligence, and never to do it unilaterally or preemptively. But, as Henry Kissinger has written, the advantage that critics after the event have over statesmen is that statesmen must act with inadequate information within an inadequate time. If Senator Kerry is president in September 2005, according to the above hypothetical, even if he has busily been reforming the CIA, he would be faced with making a command decision with ambiguous intelligence assessments. Would he be willing to take a one in two bet on the lives of millions of American citizens? Those odds are pretty good if you are betting on a horse. They stink if you are betting on your constitutional duty to protect Americans from foreign attack and slaughter.

Senator Kerry appears to be an intelligent, rational person. Surely he would at least consider preemptive action on ambiguous information in the hypothetical case cited. Unless he is prepared to categorically reject such considerations, he has no principled difference with President Bush. His differences with the president are merely ones of case-by-case judgment calls and implementing skills.

It would be good if sometime during the election campaign Sen. Kerry were confronted with such a proposition. After all, this election campaign is going to be about more than individuals; it will be about first principles of governance in the age of terrorism. We know President Bush's first principles -- they are written by his war decisions over the last three years. The Democratic contender's principles can only be written in his words. The media should compel maximum precision in those words over the next nine months.

But regarding Bush's Iraq diplomacy, Senator Kerry has already provided some specific words at his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in December. They are revealing. In the question period after the speech, a Newsweek reporter asked whether Kerry, who faulted the president's diplomacy, could have done a better job.

"Yes. Absolutely. Let me explain," Kerry said. The senator went on to say: "Now at the time, (the French and Germans) were pushing for a second vote. But there was a way through that path ... I don't think it took a lot of skill or analysis to understand that the politics of their populations at that time were not ready to move. And any president ought to understand the politics of other people's electorates ... "He then suggested we could isolate the French and German governments by co-operating with their delays for a little while.

Was Sen. Kerry being naïve or disingenuous with that answer? Surely he knew that German Chancellor Schroeder had himself whipped-up anti American fervor to win his election. And France's Chirac -- riding a wave of anti-Americanism out of his own corruption scandals -- had already admitted the Iraqi WMD threat but categorically rejected an armed response. This was great domestic politics for both those European leaders. Sen. Kerry would have held American security hostage to fanatically anti-American French and German public opinion being cheered on by their cynically calculating leaders.

Senator Kerry's portentously delivered criticisms of President Bush's foreign policy sound credible to the credulous listener. But when one looks closely, his foreign policy strategies seem to be well described by Blanche DuBois' last words in the Tennessee Williams play, "Streetcar Named Desire": "Whoever you are -- I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."

This is not the leader I would want. I'm not French or German. I choose an American leader who puts America first.

[rexbo 104]

Exactly, not only would he not act beforehand to prevent a major attack; after we were attacked, he would go to the UN and beg them to do it for us because all of our soldiers are war criminals...

[Tigermike 3,715]

The only way to have any idea what Mr. Kerry would do is by his own words. So I visited Mr. Kerry's website to get some idea what he says.

But as often as Mr. Kerry flip flops there is no telling what he would do or when he might do it.

As President, I will chart a new course rooted in our enduring values.  I will replace the Bush years of  isolation with a new era of alliances – because while the Cold War has ended, our need for allies to confront and overcome a different array of dangers and challenges is as great or greater than ever.

As President, I will not cede our security to any nation or institution  – and adversaries will have no doubt of my resolve to use force if necessary – but I will always understand that even the only superpower on earth cannot succeed without co-operation and compromise with our friends and allies.

Mr. Kerry knows that Americans by and large would never want our military under UN control so he says the above. But in the same sentence he says "cannot succeed without co-operation and compromise with our friends and allies." It seems Mr. Kerry is saying that he will wait until he has permission from the UN and "friends and allies." I wonder if Mr. Kerry is aware of the 108 nations (members of the UN) who decline to pursue terrorists!

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031201-111537-6088r.htm

I will carry that message to the world myself in my first hundred days in office.  I will go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations.  I will make it clear that when the Secretary of State speaks, he or she speaks for America – not for the losing cause of internationalism inside an Administration obsessed with its own hubris and swagger.

It is obvious that Mr. Kerry was not affected by 9/11 enough to want to do any thing about it. God forbid that if he is elected another attack takes place.

Nowhere is the need for the United States to reengage the world community and renew alliances more critical than Iraq.  The American people demand and deserve a policy that provides greater protection to our troops and greater prospects for success.  Ironically, the Bush Administration’s actions have pushed the United Nations and our allies away from joining us in this endeavor even though  they too have an enormous stake in its outcome.

Let the French and Germans take the lead, they do so much for world security.

A powerful case can be made that the international community has a common interest in assuring that Iraq does not become a permanent quagmire – or a rogue state reborn, with Saddam Hussein or his successor basking in his palace, thumbing his nose at the world and sponsoring a new haven for terrorists.  The Administration, bent on its go-it-alone approach, has done little to make the case or to give the United Nations and our allies the necessary incentives to join in.

I hate to tell you Mr. Bouffant Hairdo, the U.S. did not go-it-alone. There are quite a few countries working and helping in Iraq. It is disingenuous of you to infer there are no others helping.

Our best option for success is to go back to the United Nations and leave no doubt that we are prepared to put the United Nations in charge of the reconstruction and governance-building processes.  I believe the prospects for success on the ground will be far greater if Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority are replaced by a UN Special Representative for Iraq 

Maybe the UN should let France or Germany or Russia take over when the Mr. Kerry takes the U.S out.

I will treat the United Nations as a full partner – not only in the war on terror, but in combating other common enemies like AIDS and global poverty.  We must seek not only to renew the mandate of the UN, but to reform its operations and revitalize its capacity.  If I am President, the United Nations will be seen as the asset it is, not a liability to a safer America.

Oh yeah the UN can bail the US out. Who would be in charge Mr. Chirac? Schröder of Germany? Khatami of Iran? Maybe Lt. Gen Omar Hassan Ahmad El-Bashier of Sudan? Libya's Leader of the Revolution, De facto Head of State Colonel Mu'ammar Abu-Minyar al-Qadhafi?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeche..._2003_1203.html

[rexbo 104]

Those are some of the scariest words I have heard in a long time. Kind of like reading Neville Chamberlin's views on diplomacy and appeasement in the mid- 1930's. Just replace 'United Nations' with 'League of Nations'.

[Tiger Al 0]

Yes, rexbo. It's just chilling.

[DKW 86 7,899]

Kerry said in 1970 that he was a internationalist and wanted to place American troops under UN Control. Basically we would lose soveriegnty.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I wonder if Mr. Kerry is aware of the 108 nations (members of the UN) who decline to pursue terrorists!

What about the leaders of some of those countries who ARE basically terrorists???

[Tigermike 3,715]

I wonder if Mr. Kerry is aware of the 108 nations (members of the UN) who decline to pursue terrorists!

What about the leaders of some of those countries who ARE basically terrorists???

Yes, yes, yes and they all have a vote in the UN! I don't advocate getting out of the UN, but I sure don't advocate letting them go after the terrorists.