by Paul albers
October 15, 2004
The U.S. Presidential election has only one issue of consequence, the war on terror. all other domestic and foreign issues are secondary since even if the next President stumbles badly in those areas, it will not strip america of the freedom to correct those mistakes later on. Losing the war on terror, however would be far more permanent and devastating.
Does it really make a difference then who wins the election? Will the election of either candidate result in a serious setback, or even defeat, in this fight?
President Bush has established an impressive track record in the war against terrorism. In the three years since the World Trade Center attack, there has not been another act of terrorism in the United States, the Taliban were removed from power in short order, three quarters of al-Quada's leadership has been killed or captured and Iraq has been liberated. More than two thirds of the provinces in Iraq are peaceful and living conditions are generally better than they were under the Baathist regime. Libya voluntarily gave up its weapons of mass destruction program specifically because Gaddafi didn't want to suffer the same fate as Saddam. There is no question in anyone's mind of Bush's intention and resolve to win the fight, and even if you disagree with the particulars of how he is fighting the war, he is fighting it and getting results.
Kerry has no record to fall back on. His brief stint in Vietnam 30 years ago hardly qualifies him for the job of Commander in Chief, even if the men who served at his side didn't call his claims of valor into question. His anti-war activities damaged his relationship with the military and his decades as a U.S. Senator contain nothing of significance to this fight other than a pattern of voting against weapons systems.
Kerry claims, however that he has a plan to make america safer and achieve victory in Iraq. That's all well and fine, but even the best plan is worthless without the resolve to see it though when things don't go exactly the way you would like. a Commander in Chief must also provide leadership that is clear and consistent. When it comes to demonstrating those qualities, Kerry has a track record, and it isn't a good one.
The centerpiece of his foreign policy is to build coalitions with other nations, yet he and his supporters go out of their way to undermine the coalition that already exists.
During the primaries, Kerry called america's allies a "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted." His verbal attacks against coalition members reached the point where the President of Poland felt compelled to take a stand against Kerry to defend the honor of his troops. Senator Kerry, who didn't even bother to show up to hear the Prime Minister of Iraq address Congress, wrote off allawi as a disingenuous puppet. His sister Diana Kerry (President of americans Overseas for Kerry) inserted herself into australia's current election by claiming that Prime Minister Howard's participation in the coalition is endangering australians.
Kerry's plan to limit unilateral military action to missions that pass the 'global test' is blatantly inconsistent. a global test is a global veto, and any actions subject to such a test are not unilateral by definition. The most fainthearted and corrupt nations would have a vehicle to gain influence on american foreign policy.
Complaints about america having to shoulder '90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs are a staple of Kerry's stump speech. Putting aside the hyperbole of that exaggerated statistic, it still demonstrates a shocking lack of the kind of resolve John F. Kennedy demonstrated when he said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
america has a bigger stake in this war than any other nation on earth, except perhaps Israel. The security of every democracy rests either directly or indirectly on american strength and that makes it a key target for terrorists. america also has the capacity to devote far more resources to a conflict than any other nation. as such it is neither surprising, nor wrong, that america is doing most of the heavy lifting.
al-Quada has already suffered devastating losses. The United States would need to have half its military and over 200 Congressmen killed or held captive to be in the same situation. In spite of this, there is absolutely no whining about the cost from the few remaining terrorist leaders, no attempt to shift part of the burden onto any other group. When it comes to resolve, Kerry has already demonstrated that he has far less of it than the terrorists, and that alone makes him incapable of leading the United States to victory.
america's strength doesn't stem from global popularity, america's strength stems from america's liberty and determination. Senator Kerry flinches at the cost of defending freedom, attacks the countries and leaders that stand with the United States against terrorism, and intends to submit to the judgment of other nations. With a candidate like that, the U.S. election isn't just about selecting a President; it's the new battlefront in the war on terror.
Paul albers is a freelance columnist and father of six.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement