(Note – This is from the same author who sent us The Global War On Terror series. Again, I didn’t not write this, but did serve as editor.)
Unfortunately, it is gauche to question a presidential contender’s judgment and world vision. When you do, overly sensitive politicians whine that you’re questioning their patriotism. But it is absolutely true that, in life, some people are right and others, just plain wrong. If everyone’s judgment was spot on, there would be no need for presidential elections.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was right to confront the Soviets, John Kerry was wrong to urge placation, further containment, continued diplomacy and disarmament. Many Vietnam war protesters were within their rights (and some would say right) to demonstrate against the war, but John Kerry was wrong to slander and abandon the troops in his effort. Although I could get bogged down in the actions of a man from 20-30 years ago, history alone does not serve to illuminate a man’s soul. One needs to put history in context and combine it with more recent actions to decipher life-long behavior patterns. Such patterns are the key to identifying and understanding a man’s future intentions.
DISASTROUS MILITARY CUTS
We know that, throughout his Senate career, John Kerry advocated significant cuts to military weapon systems and the research thereof, but what does that mean to us today and what context can we find to identify a behavior pattern? Supportive Democrats will point to several military appropriation bills John Kerry did indeed vote for over the past 20 years and say, ‘See! He supports the military and Republicans are misrepresenting the Senator’s record.’ But, still, this information is historical in nature and provides no current context.
As far as I can find, there are four military items on John Kerry’s agenda for his presidency:
He will add 40,000 troops and double the size of our special forces.
He will eliminate funding for and research into Bunker Busting Nuclear Weapons.
He will eliminate funding for, research into and deployment of the missile defense system.
He is against the repositioning of U.S. troops in Europe and the Korean Peninsula.
I applaud John Kerry in his promise to add 40,000 troops and double the size of our special forces, but doing so at the expense of necessary defensive weapons exposes our country and our troops to greater risk and demonstrates a potentially deadly lack of vision, the same lack of vision Kerry exhibited throughout the 1980s.
Gone are the days that we are forced to place hundreds of thousands of troops across a battlefront to either defend or capture territory. Additionally, the development of technologically advanced weapons have allowed us to, not only increase the accuracy of our efforts, but also decrease our reliance on large numbers of troops to carry out missions. Adding troops is commendable, but to do so without investing in the weapons necessary to defeat the threat we now face is dangerous.
Most Americans now understand that there are three major threats facing us today:
Rogue regimes sharing WMDs and the technology and knowledge to build and use them, not only with terrorists but also with other rogue regimes.
The use of medium-range ballistic missiles and long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles by rogue nations to attack Europe, Israel and/or the United States.
An organized band of terrorists pulling off an attack in Europe or the United States.
In order to disrupt terrorists plotting attacks against the West, both President Bush and John Kerry believe we have to find and eliminate sources of terrorist funding, encourage countries to interdict terrorists plotting in their country and play defense here at home. The difference between the two men is that the president also believes that we must, in addition to playing defense at home, play offense in places where terrorists are harbored, funded and assisted. Failure to play offense allows terrorists the opportunity to plan and plot attacks, develop and test deadly weapons and recruit, train and organize additional Jihadists, all without having to fear retribution, harassment and interdiction.
With regard to rogue regimes utilizing ballistic missiles, the best way to protect Europe, Israel and the United States is to further test and deploy the already developed missile defense systems. These systems identify, track and intercept incoming missiles. The newly deployed system still has slight accuracy issues, but further testing should provide us with an impenetrable shield against incoming missiles from North Korea, China and the like. John Kerry stated in the first debate in Miami that he intends to kill the missile defense program and leave the U.S., Israel and Europe virtually defenseless against these ballistic missiles.
The WMD threat has quite literally gone underground. Weapons of mass destruction are now being developed and stored by rogue regimes in deep underground bunkers protected by layers of steel and concrete. At this time, the military is developing and testing a bunker busting nuclear weapon. The bunker busting bomb penetrates the earth, steel and concrete and then explodes at a certain depth, depending upon the resistance it encounters.
But why does it need to be a nuclear weapon? First, a little context. The nuclear part of the bunker buster is not as powerful as a traditional nuclear weapon and therefore will not disperse significant amounts of radiation. However, if we use a conventional bunker buster on an underground chemical or biological facility, it is very likely that the chemical and biological weapons that we intended to destroy would be released into the surrounding area, causing more harm than good.
However, the addition of a tactical nuclear explosion causes a heat so intense that it quickly destroys the chemical and biological contents of the illegal weapons. Bunker busting nuclear weapons will allow us to hit underground stockpiles of WMD, completely destroy them and alleviate unintended dispersion of deadly materials.
John Kerry would eliminate the program immediately. What could his rationale possibly be? According to his answer at the Miami presidential debate, “You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, ‘You can’t have nuclear weapons,’ but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation.”
Kerry is saying that the United States of America can not be trusted to possess the nuclear weapons we may need to defend ourselves against underground WMD production and storage. Kerry is advocating unilateral disarmament, as if America is the most dangerous civilization on the face of the earth. Kerry is more concerned with how we are viewed by people like the Iranian mullahs and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il than he is with the safety and security of us here in the United States.
Just like he did all through the 1980s, John Kerry is actively siding with the wrong people, advocating the position of our enemies (“Why can’t we have them if you do”) and promising unilateral disarmament and negotiating from a position of extreme weakness.
These are all contemporaneous positions held by and promised by John Kerry and provides current context to historical acts. This clearly establishes a pattern of behavior, and one that is extremely dangerous to America, her citizens and the world as a whole.
CALAMITOUS IRANIAN POLICY
In that same Miami presidential debate, John Kerry advocated providing Iran with the very nuclear fuel they need to create nuclear weapons in an effort to test their intentions. The Iranians claim they need the fuel for their reactors to generate electricity in the oil rich terrorist supporting country. Unfortunately, the by-product of the process of creating nuclear power is enriched uranium that can be used to create nuclear weapons. According to Kerry’s plan, the Iranians would have to consent to U.N. monitoring and would be responsible for handing over the resulting uranium to European countries for disposal. If they fail to hand over the uranium, Kerry would urge the U.N. to put sanctions together.
In all fairness, this is the plan being promoted by the British, French and German negotiators currently in discussions with Iran. And, President Bush may, in a second term, accept this negotiated settlement. So, what’s the difference between Bush and Kerry? To answer that question, we must consider this question: ‘What if the Iranians refuse to hand over the uranium and fail to abide by the negotiated settlement?’
Under President Bush, we could impose sanctions with the backup threat of bunker busting nuclear weapons to destroy their entire nuclear capability. With John Kerry, if sanctions don’t work, we would have no recourse because he will have cut the one military program that could have taken out their illegal operations.
It is irresponsible to suggest America can not be trusted but that we should test Iran to see if the most active terrorist supporting regime in the world can be trusted with nuclear fuel. And it is just plain ignorant to provide the regime with nuclear fuel without a backup plan to deal with Iran’s likely refusal to abide by the terms of the negotiated settlement.
FAILED NORTH KOREAN POLICIES OF THE PAST
During the Clinton administration, Madeline Albright and Jimmy Carter engaged in direct (bilateral) negotiations with communist North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. In return for providing the North Korean government with free oil AND NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY, Kim Jong Il was to cease all nuclear weapon development activities, including the enrichment of nuclear materials and allow U.N. inspectors to monitor their weapon sites. If North Korea failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, they were told that they would face economic and military sanctions.
Needless to say, North Korea continued enriching nuclear material and developing their nuclear program, right under the noses of, you guessed it, the Clinton administration and the United Nations. Surprise, surprise. It went undetected by both Clinton and the U.N. until President Bush took office and noticed the illegal activities.
President Bush wisely realized that any arrangement between the United States and North Korea would not work without the cooperation of other countries in the region. Regional neighbors could apply the type of pressure on North Korea that the United States just couldn’t do alone. Each of North Korea’s neighbors has a vested interest in North Korea’s nuclear program and Bush felt that they should take an increased responsibility in the negotiation process.
Call it an intervention if you like, but if you are being pressured by the United States AND all of your powerful neighbors (6-party talks), you’re more likely to cooperate.
John Kerry doesn’t agree. During the debate in Miami he claimed he would attempt to continue Bush’s 6-party talks but also vowed to engage in the failed Clinton policy of bilateral talks and Kerry continued that he would “put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.” This is nothing short of diplomat-speak for ‘We will give major concessions on everything important to the communist dictator, INCLUDING HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES, to negotiate a settlement much like the one that failed during the Clinton years.’
When will John Kerry get it? Terrorists, dictators and international thugs can not be trusted to abide by terms typed on a piece of paper. Their signatures are worthless and meaningless. Mr. Kerry, no matter how many concessions you make, even if you allow the dictator to engage in human rights violations, you will not be able to gain Kim Jong Il’s confidence, trust and cooperation. It’s time for further pursuing the 6-party talks, not reverting to the failed foreign policies of the past.
DEMOCRATIC VISION OF THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR
Just a little over 2 months ago, the Democrats ratified their party platform at their national convention, in which they stated of Afghanistan: “The Bush Administration has badly mishandled the war’s aftermath. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country. Instead, he has all but turned away from Afghanistan, allowing it to become again a potential haven for terrorists.” Sounds hauntingly familiar, doesn’t it?
The lack of vision demonstrated by the Democrats and John Kerry is incredibly astounding and, I think, unprecedented in the history of presidential politics. Since the Democratic National Convention, Afghanistan has sent athletes, including women, to the Olympic Games in Athens and has prepared for and held extremely successful and incident-free elections in order to democratically elect their own president. Does this sound like President Bush is “allowing [Afghanistan] to become again a potential haven for terrorists?”
The ineptitude of this statement in the Democratic platform is frightening. Not only didn’t they have the courage to discuss the successes in Afghanistan because they felt it would hurt their single cause (electing John Kerry president at any cost) but they also lacked the vision to foresee the state of Afghanistan now just a little more than two months into the future. This has to concern even those who will cast their vote to elect John Kerry to the most powerful position in the world.
And there’s more! In the section of the platform entitled “Defeating Terrorism,” in addition to the discussion of the “failure” that is Afghanistan and the basic slogans like ‘We will cut off funds and increase intelligence,’ the platform discusses just one additional method for defeating terrorism, public diplomacy. You heard right, public diplomacy.
I too was kind of confused by this term when I first read it, but here is what the Democrats are proposing to do to defeat terrorism, “America needs a major initiative in public diplomacy to support the many voices of freedom in the Arab and Muslim world. To improve education for the next generation of Islamic youth, we need a cooperative international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. And we must support human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grassroots up. Democracy will not blossom overnight, but America should speed its growth by sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments that work toward this end.”
So, we will use human rights groups, labor unions and the media to create democratic cultures and defeat rogue regimes? I’m sure the AFL-CIO is ecstatic! And we’re going to support human rights groups to defeat evil dictators who don’t believe in human rights? Sounds like a ‘more sensitive war on terror’ to me. And what do we do about the hate-mongering, radical, violence-inciting religious schools or Madrassas? The Democratic platform suggest that we engage in a public relations campaign to ‘compete’ with the Madrassas. Yeah, that will work. Religious zealots are easily persuaded by fluffy television and radio ads. Maybe a few flyers posted at the Madrassas will work. Are there any Kinkos’ in Iran?
John Kerry believes that America can not be trusted with the weapons necessary to defend herself while Iran, the world’s top supporter of terrorism, is worthy of our trust. John Kerry believes that America should honor the word of a dictator, even at the expense of America’s safety and security. John Kerry and the Democrats believed that Afghanistan was a disaster just 2 months prior to their historic elections. John Kerry and the Democrats believe the way to defeat terror hinges upon the media, labor unions, human rights groups and a public relations campaign to ‘compete’ with religious zealots.
Mr. Kerry, terrorism is not just a nuisance, it is a life and death struggle against those who would kill us and the regimes which harbor, fund and assist them.
We live in a post-9/11 world and George W. Bush gets it. We must kill and/or capture terrorists where they live, not here in America. While hunting the terrorists down, we have to keep them on the run so they don’t have the opportunity to plan, plot, train and organize. We must demand strict compliance from rogue regimes on the terms of previously negotiated agreements and international expectations. Those who wish to ostracize themselves must know that America will no longer allow them to hide behind complicit members of the United Nations. Rogue dictators must know that defiance of the world is no longer acceptable and there is a punishment beyond sanctions, including military action and regime change. The international community must know that we mean what we say and that Americans have the will to follow through.
Failure to re-elect President Bush will send the world exactly the opposite message. That we will kill and/or capture terrorists unless, of course, they find refuge in a country that A) is not cooperating with us and B) we can not convince the international community is worthy of our retribution. We will always act militarily against an imminent threat, unless you don’t let us know an attack is imminent or you manage to launch a sneak attack. We will expect compliance with agreements, but the worst retaliation you will face for defiance is economic sanctions. We mean what we say, but only in certain circumstances and Americans don’t have the will to follow through anyway, so bide your time until the next election and a political opportunist will save your hides.
If, after reading this, you’re still not sure of how you will vote on election day, please take the time to consider the desires of those who are protecting our freedoms every day. General Tommy Franks has described John Kerry, even if not in these harsh terms, as a liar and an opportunist. And General Franks should know, he planned and executed our missions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
John Kerry has rarely missed an opportunity to point out a successful strike by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, like a new bombing or beheading. He believes this is his ticket to the White House. However, he has yet to credit our troops for any SPECIFIC U.S. military success, beyond meaningless generalized sloganeering like “I support our troops. They’re doing a fantastic job.”
For example, Kerry couldn’t wait to pounce on the missing 377 tons of explosives missing from Iraq, but has yet to commend our fine men and women for having already located, secured and/or destroyed 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives. Let’s see, 377 tons versus 400,000 tons. Sounds like our military is doing a wonderful job. Unfortunately, taking such a responsible and accurate position might get in Kerry’s way of winning the presidency.
As for the troops, when all you hear is you’re risking your life for “a mistake,” “a grand diversion,” that Iraq is most certainly headed for civil war and that democracy will never hold, your morale starts to fade. When you hear that you can’t trust the decisions of your commanders, including your Commander-in-Chief, because they’re “incompetent,” you start to question the mission. When you hear that a presidential candidate thinks that the insurgents are winning the battle to drive Iraq into “chaos” despite your best efforts, you start to lose any hope of succeeding.
Even when the presidential contender blames your “brain-dead” leader, you too must be brain-dead, because you believe in the mission, because you believe you are winning the battle, because you see democracy taking root a little bit every day and because you see the appreciation on the faces of those your are helping.
That’s why General Franks and approximately 73% of the members of our military are supporting President Bush for re-election. The last thing we want to do is stick the military with a man they can’t possibly respect, a man who disrespects the military nearly as often as he disrespects its Commander-in-Chief. We can’t afford to fight the Global War on Terror with military morale as low as it was in 1971 after John Kerry slimed his fellow soldiers as drug-addicted, violent, criminal monsters, thus shaming them for life.