As America faces an insurgency in Iraq, military overstretch and
attempts by Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, the
first presidential debate revealed stark differences between the
two presidential candidates’ approaches to these crises.
While President Bush will combine a robust set of far-sighted
and complimentary diplomatic and military options, Sen. John Kerry
will depend excessively on other nations’ good faith ““
he will ignore incentive structures, backup plans and long-term
goals.
Regarding Iran, President Bush’s combination of sanctions,
multilateral diplomatic pressure and military options is far
superior to Kerry’s trust and wait approach. Bush supports
missile defense, retaining forces in Iraq to pose a credible
conventional threat, updating our nuclear deterrent to defeat
countermeasures used by Iran and North Korea ““ largely
burying bunkers and weapons of mass destruction underground ““
and selling bombs to Israel that could be used in a strike against
Iran’s nuclear apparatus.
Kerry has supported none of these. He instead offered to give
nuclear fuel to Iran and wait to see what they do with it,
promising to alleviate the fear of the United States he claims
drives terrorism and the Middle East arms race. However,
Iran’s separate rivalry with Israel is more than sufficient
to motivate Iran to seek nuclear weapons. Kerry’s policies
will only ensure that the United States will have neither
diplomatic leverage nor military methods to keep nuclear weapons
out of the hands of despots and terrorists.
Through his rejection of bilateral negotiations with North
Korea, President Bush has forced the state to negotiate with China,
Japan, Russia and South Korea. These powerful states are determined
to keep nuclear weapons away from an unstable dictator on their
borders. Kerry, however, would agree to bilateral talks ““
allowing North Korea to ignore these powerful American allies.
While Kerry is regarded as the better diplomat, it is unclear
how many relevant nations he relates well to. Kerry’s North
Korea policies will anger China, Russia and Japan. His trade
policies approach economic war against India. His recent snubs and
attacks have complicated relations with Poland, Iraq and Saudi
Arabia, and his branding of American allies in Iraq as
“bribed and coerced” and his coddling of Iran further
strain his relations with governments in Israel.
Hunting al-Qaeda, President Bush invaded Afghanistan. He
succeeded where Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British and
the Soviets met their match. Using a revolutionary combination of
American special forces, Afghan allies and air power, the
oppressive Taliban was deposed.
Most of al-Qaeda’s leadership and training facilities were
neutralized, and 10 million people are registered for democratic
elections. While Osama bin Ladin managed to escape, military
experts ““ and a millennia of humbled empires ““ stand by
the use of Afghan allies. Kerry’s decision to blame bin
Ladin’s escape on “outsourcing” the war ““
and his claims that moving types of forces to Iraq that were
irrelevant to the capture of bin Ladin in his mountain hideout
““ are empty rhetoric.
Since the 1991 Gulf War, 16 U.N. Resolutions were passed to
force Saddam Hussein to bring his weapons programs into the light.
Hussein acted as if he was hiding weapons, and virtually every
intelligence agency in the world believed he had them. Even the New
York Times strongly proclaimed their belief that Iraq was harboring
WMD.
Meanwhile, Hussein made contact with al-Qaeda and other
terrorist groups and was a primary supporter of the Palestinian
Intifada, which ““ deprived of Saddam’s riches and
competing for resources with terrorists in Iraq ““
deteriorated shortly after Saddam’s regime.
President Bush will stay the course in Iraq by training
additional Iraqi forces, increasing allies’ foreign aid to
Iraq, retaking the few areas still under rebel control, and
continuing to meet every deadline for transferring power to the
Iraqi people. Sen. Kerry has settled on a “cut and run”
strategy which will rule out additional forces.
Through his quest to withdraw American forces within six months,
Kerry could nullify the great sacrifices of lives and money that
have already been spent in Iraq. Kerry claims he will leverage his
popularity in Europe to bring relief forces, but France and Germany
insist they will not send help.
To remedy military overstretch, President Bush will bring 70,000
troops home from Europe and Asia. We no longer require two heavy
divisions to defend Germany from the Soviet Union, or 37,000 in
South Korea as a “tripwire force” when a vastly smaller
number will suffice.
We do require more forces to fight the war on terror and to
deter rogue states. Kerry promises increased military recruitment,
but instead will likely radically reduce it by providing college
scholarships for community service comparable to those for military
service.
This November, we can choose the safety of strength, or we can
choose the insecurity of weakness. Choose wisely.
Knee is the executive director of the Bruin
Republicans.