[Previous entry: "Kim Jong Il Endorses John Kerry"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "The Great Debates Part One"]

09/30/2004: "The Big Debate"

The debates start tonight and the first one is on foreign policy. This is an important debate because we hope to hear some type of coherent policy from John Kerry instead of just sound bites from stump speeches.

The debate will last 90 minutes and my biggest concern is that listening to John Kerry dissect all the nuances of his thoughts out loud will bore me to death long before I can assemble his words into any coherent thought. I’ve heard his handlers have been working on short answers with him this week so we’ll see how they did.

I think the theme of his answers will be that we need help to get Iraq under control and that he is a new beginning with the UN for America. Wipe the slate clean and start over with John-John.

That might be true if countries operated on friendships and good old boys clubs. They don’t, they operate on self-interest. Let me make this point clearer. Countries don’t have friends, they have allies. Alliances are formed to advance common interests. If there is no common interest there is nothing in it for them.

Some countries saw the attack on 9/11 as an attack against all Western civilizations because they see the bigger picture of the jihadists. Those countries joined the coalition without being coerced or bribed.

Other countries realized that they too were vulnerable but other interests ranked higher in their priorities. Those countries are currently being investigated in the UN Oil for Food Scandal. These are countries that wanted us to wait or not invade Iraq at all, probably so the paper shredders in Baghdad could finish the job and conceal their illegal activity.

Some countries thought we got what we deserved because we are arrogant and selfish in their opinion. You are never going to get those countries to help us no matter who is President unless you are willing to give them cash or power. Personally, I am unwillingly to deal with extortionists that will sell you down the river for a buck more from your enemy.

President Bush created a doctrine that scares a lot of countries and some Americans also. Having stood on the emotionally devastating rubble of Ground Zero, he adopted a policy of preemption. It’s quite simple. When we see a threat, we will extinguish it with or without help or permission. No one will protect America better than America or have our best interests at heart.

We will make the decision on the best intelligence we have and we will strike offensively at terrorist and sponsors of terrorism in an attempt to never be burying 3000 people ever again because we were still trying to put the pieces together to eliminate any doubt. It’s a risky policy because intelligence is not black and white. Interpreting the shades of gray is where mistakes are made. So it is inevitable that mistakes will be made no matter how prudent the interpretation. It’s a risk I am willing to take. The alternative is to bury more Americans and respond forcefully afterwards.

John Kerry has said that he would respond forcefully to any future attacks. That was the oh so very international, civilized, polite but failed policy that lead to 9/11. I am unwilling to accept that again. Is the preemption policy ruthless? Maybe. We didn’t start this fight but we better be willing to finish it. I just don’t think Mr. Kerry has the mettle to do a full tour of duty in country and win this fight.