Skip to comments.Kerry should explain how he will get allies for U.S.
Posted on 09/26/2004 3:10:36 PM PDT by StJacques
I have watched John Kerry promise the American people in numerous campaign speeches this year that his administration will be much more successful in securing assistance from "America's traditional allies" to support the U.S. in the war on terror. Almost from the beginning of his run for the White House he has criticized the Bush administration, and I believe unjustly, for alienating friendly nations, ignoring the U.N., and deciding to go it alone in Iraq, leaving the American people to pay the cost in blood and treasure. But while Kerry's promises to secure meaningful support for the U.S. have been a prominent feature of his campaign, the specific details under which he will accomplish this objective, beyond the oft-stated force of his personality, have not been forthcoming from Kerry or individuals empowered to speak for him. So here I am, left to myself to explain how Kerry will bring allies to our side, since no reporter has yet to pin him down on how he will make it happen. I have concluded that the answer lies in addressing two separate questions; what do America's potential allies want from the United States and what can we see in John Kerry's expressed ideas and public record that suggests he will reach an accommodation with them?
The most important item on the wish list for our potential allies is well known. France, Germany, Russia, China, and a host of less prominent players on the international scene want the U.S. to show greater deference to the United Nations when addressing international security concerns and before deciding to use military force. In straight language this means the undoing of the Bush Doctrine of Preemption as a response to recognizable threats to American national security - let's put aside the debate over how intelligence perceives these threats for the moment - and a return to the pre-9/11 policy that limited the ability of the U.S., or any other nation, from responding until it had been attacked. Preemption has been a particularly sore point of contention for France and Germany, ostensibly the allies whose support Kerry would want most to secure, since they are the only nations with resources sufficient to provide significant help. Kerry asserts that he would have his own version of preemption, which he distinguishes from that of President Bush as one that is not "a preemptive war for the purpose of simply removing a dictator." He does promise that he would attack terrorists who may be planning to strike the U.S. if he had solid knowledge of their whereabouts, but I cannot find Kerry making any such statement with regard to attacking regimes that may be inclined to support terrorist activities. And to get right to the point, I do not see that he ever resolves the question as to whether military force could be used in dealing with North Korea or Iran. Kerry's published strategy for preventing nuclear proliferation at least mentions that "all options must remain on the table" to bring North Korea into compliance on nuclear proliferation and he identifies Iran's activities as threatening, but at no time does he offer a clear statement that he will resort to force if the threat either of these two nations poses to America's national security becomes imminent. The inescapable conclusion one must arrive at in answering the question "how will John Kerry gain the support of France and Germany?" is that he will renounce preemption as an option for dealing with outlaw regimes and make it exclusively a means of responding to terrorists operating outside of state control.
I have real problems with this approach and I suspect that most Americans will understand the consequences of the "Kerry Doctrine" - may I use this term? - if the matter ever comes into open discussion, which is why I suspect that John Kerry has avoided giving us the specifics on how he will reestablish America's ties with its traditional allies. Replacing the Bush Doctrine of Preemption with a scaled-down version that applies only to terrorists will mean that America will relinquish its right to strike at regimes who threaten us - read "weaken our national security" - unless you believe that the U.N. truly is capable of preventing nations such as Iran and North Korea from disseminating weapons technology to terrorist groups. I do not believe the U.N. can be trusted in this and I am convinced the majority of American voters will side with me if the choice is put to them. It also might be useful to point out that reversing the Bush Doctrine will not bring France and Germany to our side in Iraq either. No; their opposition to the war will persist and, instead, it actually may encourage the U.S. to remove itself from Iraq before it is stabilized as a show of good faith that American policies genuinely have changed. If you think the vacuum in Afghanistan in the early 1990's gave a boost to terrorism, imagine what it would be like in Iraq, where there are resources of enormous value to fund terrorist activities.
So, while I know that the questions put to the two candidates in the upcoming debate will address issues as if pointing to a globe and saying "Iraq," "Afghanistan," "Israel and the Palestinians," and more; I am hoping that Kerry will be asked to explain how he will keep his promise to bring America's "traditional allies" back into the fold and, specifically, how his doctrine of "preemption" differs from that of President Bush. And I would love to sit back and watch Bush's response.
But I anticipate a round of questions that ignores the overall framework within which the war on terror will be fought. We'll see.
It's called selling out. Nothing complicated.
There is only one candidate with a clear vision and it is the President. After 9/11 we cannot waiver, we cannot falter, let the cruel lessons of Beslan remind us of exactly why we must remain committed, for our childrens sake say no to John Kerry.
Well put Lurkin and your example is poignant. Have you - and everyone else - noticed how Putin is suddenly promising preemptive action against the Chechens since Beslan?
If this leftist ever gets elected, we're doomed...
John Forbes Kerry will not be able to bring any of the "good" allies aboard for a few hundred reasons. Here are some of them:
1. Eurabia is, at the highest level of most all EU nations, a group of high level politicians that have "joined" with the Arab countries to form a coalition. This coalition allows concessions to Islam (fascism) in a way that sells out each country to Arab/Islamic priciples for peace.
2. France and Germany both are wholly socialist/pacifist nations with high unemployment and high levels of government dole. This is the America the Democratic party wants to see here. It's hard to vote out once in place because, after all, it's a free ride for half the population. Anyway, France is totally "tapped out" in Afghanistan with 17,000 troups. Germany is on the verge of a neo-fascist return to power and Schroder has bigger problems at home.
3. America is the only country, so far, to refuse the Eurabian sell out, due mainly to the fact that part of their doctrine is the elimination of Israel, something we will not accept.
An excellent article on this nightmare can be found at the link below. Read it all. It's well worth the time and will give you a crystal clear reason why John Kerry doesn't stand the chance of a fart in a hurricane, of getting France and Germany to do anything without selling out along with them.
Nearly 25% 0f Troops in Iraq are Non US Troops - Kerry wrong again!
In addition to the United States, which has more than 130,000 troops in Iraq, many other countries have sent military personnel. The number of non-American coalition troops is more than 40,000, though numbers fluctuate.
United Kingdom: 9,000 soldiers
Italy: 3,000 soldiers, some serving as police and engineers
Poland: 2,400 soldiers
Ukraine: 1,600 soldiers
Netherlands: 1,100 soldiers plus a logistics team, a field hospital, military police and 200 engineers
Japan: 1,100 soldiers assigned to reconstruction
Australia: 800 soldiers
Romania: 700 soldiers plus 149 de-mining specialists, military police and "special intelligence" members
South Korea: 600 military engineers and medics
Bulgaria: 480 soldiers plus chemical warfare experts
Thailand: 440 soldiers assigned to humanitarian missions
Denmark: 420 soldiers including medics and military police
El Salvador: 360 soldiers
Hungary: 300 soldiers
Norway: 179 soldiers, mostly engineers and mine clearers
Mongolia: 160 soldiers involved in peacekeeping
Azerbaijan: 150 soldiers taking part in law enforcement and protection of historic monuments
Portugal: 125 soldiers functioning as police officers
Latvia: 120 soldiers
Lithuania: 115 soldiers
Slovakia: 102 soldiers
Czech Republic: 80 soldiers, serving as police
Philippines: 80 soldiers plus police and medics
Albania: 70 non-combat troops
Georgia: 70 soldiers
New Zealand: 60 army engineers assigned to reconstruction (expected to leave in Sept. 2004)
Moldova: 50 soldiers including de-mining specialists and medics
Macedonia: 35 soldiers
Estonia: 30 soldiers
Kazakhstan: 30 soldiers (expected to leave end of May 2004)
Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq following the election of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero on March 14. Honduras and the Dominican Republic quickly followed suit. The three countries combined had nearly 2,000 troops in Iraq. Nicaragua withdrew its 115 troops at the end of March 2004 for economic reasons.
Countries that provide non-military support include: Kuwait and Qatar, which have hosted the U.S. Central Command and the invasion force; Ethiopia and Eritrea, which have given use of bases or ports; and Turkey, which has given permission for airspace use. Others countries have opted to give political support: Angola, Costa Rica, Colombia, Iceland, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Uganda and Uzbekistan.
In early April 2004, the Bush administration indicated it was negotiating with another 50 countries that had expressed interest in providing peacekeeping troops.
The exact number of foreign workers in Iraq is hard to gauge, but it's at least 30,000. Many work for companies that have contracts with the American military to provide support or to rebuild the country. Others work for aid agencies.
Companies with U.S. Department of Defence contracts:
Kellogg, Brown and Root
Washington Group International
CSC DynCorp International
Companies with U.S. Agency for International Development contracts:
International Resources Group
Air Force Augmentation Program
Stevedoring Services of America
Creative Associates International
Research Triangle Institute
Skylink Air and Logistics Support
Bearing Point Inc.
Bechtel (including subcontractors from the UK, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, Kuwait, Switzerland)
Non-governmental organizations with USAID grants:
United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF)
World Health Organization (WHO)
International Relief and Development Incorporated
Agriculture Co-operative Development International
Volunteers in Overseas Co-operative Assistance
Co-operative Housing Foundation
Save the Children Federation
Iraqi Nursing Association
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.