Skip to comments.MAKING A DENT IN LIBERAL DISINFORMATION: KERRY'S NATIONAL SECURITY "PLAN"
Posted on 10/25/2004 2:54:25 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Making a Dent in Liberal Disinformation: Kerry's National Security ''Plan'' Written by Lester Dent Monday, October 25, 2004
One might have come away from the second presidential debate with the impression that John Kerry has plans. He said so over 30 times. This is not to be confused with Dr. Kings ''I have a dream.'' Nor should it be compared to Dr. Deans ''I have a scream.'' John Kerrys theme is: ''I have a plan.''
Lets look at one ''plan,'' on National Security. The ''plan'' includes:
''Launch and lead a new era of alliances''--What did Bush do when he got Arab states to support the toppling of the Taliban, or got the former Soviet Bloc nations to support us in Iraq? These are certainly new allies, new alliances. Yet John talks about old alliances, with Germany and France. He demeans the new alliances, dismissing those who are currently supporting us, calling Iraqs leader a liar and a puppet. The son of a diplomat should know how to speak more diplomatically.
Alliances shift with times and interests; the Soviets and Chinese were allies in World War II against Germany, Japan and Italy. These later countries became allies against the Soviets and Chinese in the 1950s. These werent ''eras,'' because the alliances were geared toward specific national goals, and were not monolithic. Countries that supported each other militarily might vie as enemies economically or legally, and vice versa. The situation has always been, shall we say, nuanced.
''A new era of alliances'' indicates that one can point to an ''old era of alliances.'' This isnt how this works. There never was a period where the United States did not seek and maintain alliances, some interim era of ''no alliances.'' The implication is that the United States is not working with allies today, which is fatuous. The United States is working with the United Nations in many areas, with NATO in others, and with 48 members pledging some level of support in Iraq today. We work with our allies within the Group of Eight nations (the so-called ''G-8''). We work with Mexico and with Canada and share alliances. President Bush has put together new alliances with countries we had never worked with before. Senator Kerry wants to ignore all of this and say we have left the ''era of alliances'' because we have failed to get the support of Germany, France, China, and Russia on Iraq. Never mind the endless diplomacy in other areas with these governments. Never mind all the other nations with us in Iraq.
Of the nations Kerry would have us court, how many have been steadfast allies in the past? How many have been enemies? Can any be considered to hold U.S. interests paramount?
Since Kerry is critical of current U.S. policy, it must mean that he considers the real ''global test'' to be the concurrence on American use of force by a handful of current allies who do not always agree with us. He states he does not want to give them a veto, but what is left? If we cooperate with them on many things in alliances, yet he says we need a new era of alliances, what we have now is obviously not good enough. What we have now is a failure of them to support us in Iraq for their own nationalistic reasons. The only change he could make is to temper our use of force by their wishes instead of acting against them. They will be setting conditions on whether we use force or not. They will have a veto. Period.
''Modernize the World's Most Powerful Military to Meet New Threats''--This is what Rumsfeld has been pushing, the ''transformation'' of the military. Perhaps Mssr. Kerry could have helped this along when in the Senate by voting for new weapons systems and increased forces. Contrast this to his promise to stop development on nuclear bunker-busting bombs, needed to penetrate to the deeply buried reactors and military structures of our enemies. Here is a man who showed his dedication to modernizing the U.S. military by voting against development or funding of major weapons systems we depend upon today like the B2 Stealth bomber, the Tomahawk cruise missile, the M1 Abrams main battle tank, the Apache helicopter and the Patriot missile. This is not an isolated position under one administration, or even Republican administrations. This goes back to his anti-military position coming out of the Vietnam war.
Not only has Kerry actively worked against modernizing the American military, he has been pretty bad on recognizing threats. He opposed the deployment of Pershing missiles in Western Europe, a deployment which helped stare down the Soviet threat and bring down the Communist regime; he saw no threat there. He saw no threat in the various South American communist dictatorships, and opposed U.S. intervention there. He saw no threat to the people in Vietnam with the withdrawal of American troops, arguing that the U.S. would have to evacuate 2,000-3,000 at most to avoid their murder or incarceration (the American withdrawal in Vietnam started one of the largest and longest refugee flights in recorded history involving millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands of killings and incarcerations). He saw no threat in Grenada, when one Marxist-Leninist government (which had gained power in a bloodless coup in 1979) was overthrown by a more militant faction in a bloody coup in 1983. Senator Kerry opposed the use of American forces to rescue 1000 medical students and install a government that was not aligned with the Russians and Cuba. Having a Russian-built military airbase and Russian military observers so close to the continental United States was not a threat to the junior senator from Massachusetts.
In the out-of-print book Kerry co-authored in 1997, The New War, Kerry set out what he foresaw as the real threats facing the United States in the future. Was terrorism high up on the list, given the attacks already committed against the United States and U.S. interests by terrorists? No. He was worried about international crime, where syndicates of CD-pirating Japanese Yakuza or organ-selling Chinese gangsters would pose the real dangers. ''The damage done by international crime is rarely as specific and dramatic as that of a terrorist attack, but in fact it is greater.''
Sure, John. Sure.
John Kerrys history demonstrates his total lack of support for modernizing the military and his inability to recognize (or even envision) threats to the United States. In his defense, it should be noted that he did push the United States to support Haitian dictator Jean-Batiste Aristide when a popular revolt forced him out of power. Unfortunately, this posed no potential threat to the United States, and United Nations peacekeepers have recently blamed the upsurge in violence in Haiti to supporters of the ousted regime gaining hope from Kerrys support.
''Deploy All That Is in America's Arsenal''--This, apparently, is governed by a caveat of first passing a ''global test,'' making sure the rest of the world approves (i.e., our traditional allies like Russia, China, Germany, and France, and our future allies like Iran). It also involves not developing modern weapons for this arsenal. When you consider that the Bush administration has done precisely what Kerrys ''plan'' cites-- using ''our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas,'' you are left with Kerrys implied promise to do the same thing, only better. Implicit in his statement is that Bush has failed to do these things, which is patently false.
''Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence on Mideast Oil''--John Kerry voted ''non'' in 1995 for drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve. He led the filibuster in 2002 to prevent voting on drilling in ANWR. The Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy estimated it would take between 7 and 12 years from exploration to production in ANWR. When initially developed, ANWR would produce about 100,000 barrels of oil a day, building up to over 200,000 in a few years, then declining. This could not displace the 2.5 million barrels a day we import from the Middle East, but an aggressive and environmentally conscious effort to develop domestic resources would go a long way to reduce our intake of Persian Gulf oil (which comprises about 1/5 of our imports, and about 7 % of our oil consumption). Had Senator Kerry not blocked development of domestic sources of energy, we would be much closer to energy independence today.
Kerrys ''plan'' is worse than just ''I would have done everything differently'' or ''I will do what Bush has done, only better.'' Kerrys plan is that he will completely reverse the steady course he has held throughout his career against modernizing the military and against recognizing real threats to the United States. His real consistency as a politician has been to actively work against the very things he says are parts of his ''plan'' today. Did he have a sudden change of heart as so many of us did after 9/11? In the debates he listed WMDs and nuclear proliferation as the greatest dangers facing the United States. We have lived with these for 50 years, with unstable and dangerous states possessing them (France, anyone?). It is the combination of terrorists and WMDs that is the real threat. Mutual Assured Destruction does not work against stateless enemies. Kerry just doesn't get it.
Steve Martin had a routine where he said he had a plan where you could become a millionaire and never pay taxes. [You ask,] ''Steve... how can I be a millionaire... and never pay taxes?'' ''First... get a million dollars. Now...''
Kerrys plans are like this. (Read using Kerrys voice in your head): ''I have a plan for Iraq to bring other nations into a true coalition. First, Ill get the other nations into the coalition. Next ''
Great plan, John!
Check this out- In Reagan's own words.