Foreign Policy: Kerry vs. Bush

[Rohirrim]

In an effort to argue issues, not personal attacks, I thought I would occasionally write up something on each issue so we could argue ideas, instead of ideologies. The first is on foreign policy. BTW, if you believe that I have misrepresented the Bush Doctrine, feel free to correct it.

Bush has created a new paradigm – pre-emptive war and unilateralism. This hasn’t been tried before, at least not to the extent that Bush is employing it. The idea is that any state that may pose a threat to the U.S. (or supports terrorists) is liable to be attacked first, before they can carry out any threat. The U.S. will seek out allies, but will not rely on the opinions of the rest of the world before taking action. The Bush Doctrine negates the value of the UN, the value of arms control agreements (many of which he has already pulled out of), and in fact, the input of any other state in the military and foreign affairs of the U.S. It is a plan for U.S. global hegemony. For more, read this: http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5345

Kerry’s foreign policy ideas seem to be a throwback to the JFK principle – “We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient--that we are only six percent of the world's population--that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind--that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity--and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”

Like JFK, Kerry believes that the value of a strong military is that it is an insurance policy for peace. Kerry’s policy would be to modernize, fund and expand the training of our military forces to meet any threat, forge stronger alliances in the world, reduce the dependence on Mideast oil, and “…deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging” (JK.com) - in other words, a global, collaborative effort, rather than a unilateral one.

My Take: I go with Kerry on this one. As the 9/11 Commission report has pointed out, we are not in a struggle against states, we are in a struggle against an ideology. This is very similar to our Cold War struggle against communism. Yes, there were states that exemplified that struggle (the USSR, China) but we also were able to succeed at stemming the flow of the ideology throughout the world. Sometimes our methods were nefarious (propping up right wing dictators), but just as often, we succeeded through involvement in other countries; building schools, water systems, agricultural systems, bringing medicine, etc. In other words, we fought communism at ground level – and won. People were naturally drawn to what the U.S. represented. We won the hearts and minds. We also built up allegiances like NATO, which perhaps did more over time to bring the USSR to its knees than any other single act we accomplished. Eight presidents employed this continuing strategy against communism and won the Cold War. Why wouldn’t this same strategy work in the War on Terrorism?

I believe the Bush doctrine will lead to the exact opposite response. By pulling the U.S. out of arms control agreements, he makes it more likely that rogue states or terrorists will get their hands on WMDs. By dropping allegiances, he turns former allies into competitors, or worse, enemies. By threatening unilateral, pre-emptive strikes, he encourages our enemies to prepare for war (read North Korea and Iran). He is also stepping away from a continuity of ideas that presidents of both parties have upheld since WWII.

I recently read an article (July, New Yorker) written by a reporter in Waziristan, one of the ungovernable, tribal provinces of Pakistan on the Afghan border. The local khan took her to the one school available to the children of that province, many of whom had to travel for hours to attend. It was a madrassa, funded by the Saudis (among others), and taught Islamic fundamentalist Wahhabism. This is the pattern all over the poverty-stricken Arab world. Fundamentalism is the only game in town.

What if the U.S. (with its allies) built a school in this province? A school with computers, the internet, books and supplies, Peace Corps teachers creating new, local teachers, etc.? The khan told her if he had an alternative school, that madrassa would collapse because the majority of parents in the region (like parents everywhere) would want their children to have a better life than they could give them. Madrassas offer suicide, an alternative school would offer a future.

I also read an article about a Special Forces unit in Afghanistan who applied this method (on their own) in a village in Afghanistan. They built a school and a water system, set up a market with a money changing table, and provided security for the village. Their commander said it was the only way to win on the ground in Afghanistan, and the only way to get reliable information from the surrounding area. That unit was removed from Afghanistan and sent to Iraq.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Good topic.

Kerry's doctrine is obviously more grounded in reality.

Unlike Bush, Kerry seems to understand that we can't develop effective intelligence networks in the war on al Qaeda and other terrorist groups w/o the cooperation of the intelligence agencies of other states (particularly Arab states.)

This is the main reason why bush's policies are making us less safe, IMO.

[watermock]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

In an effort to argue issues, not personal attacks, I thought I would occasionally write up something on each issue so we could argue ideas, instead of ideologies. The first is on foreign policy. BTW, if you believe that I have misrepresented the Bush Doctrine, feel free to correct it.

Go on, I have never endorsed the Bush Doctrine, it was always an assumption.

Bush has created a new paradigm – pre-emptive war and unilateralism. This hasn’t been tried before, at least not to the extent that Bush is employing it. The idea is that any state that may pose a threat to the U.S. (or supports terrorists) is liable to be attacked first, before they can carry out any threat.

What I find amusing is no mention of 9/11, only an asserton of a madman bent on premption.

The U.S. will seek out allies, but will not rely on the opinions of the rest of the world before taking action.

What opinions? Who has the balls to stand up to the terrorists. Who was there for the United States when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Only the British and Australians and the Phillipines. Poland is still not amused. The rest are pussies. Who did you expect? The Oil for Terrorism Triumverate that is using Billions of dollars right now for suicide bombers?

The Bush Doctrine negates the value of the UN, the value of arms control agreements (many of which he has already pulled out of), and in fact, the input of any other state in the military and foreign affairs of the U.S. It is a plan for U.S. global hegemony.

Number one, the UN has a multi BILLION DOLLAR SCANDAL THAT ISN'T EVEN BEING COVERED BY THE PRESS. Second, pulling out of arms control agreements to weaken the USA is stupid beyond even your belief, and third, the idea of Hegonomy is ludicrous without any substantiation beyone the need of national security. The fact is, France, Russia and Germany had all their own plans under the UN. You just don't get it.

Kerry’s foreign policy ideas seem to be a throwback to the JFK principle – “We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient--that we are only six percent of the world's population--that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind--that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity--and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”

The rhetoric was far from the actual reality. It seems to be? Your telling me that Kerry is JFK who almost started WW3 then was assasinated by the Mafia and handed a rediculous war over to LBJ, who someone should tell LABF, neither LBJ or Bush, who 99.9 percent blah blah blah.

Neither one resigned. Both said they wouldn't run again. I could give a crap what the USA today thinks, I allready addressed that.

Like JFK, Kerry believes that the value of a strong military is that it is an insurance policy for peace. Kerry’s policy would be to modernize, fund and expand the training of our military forces to meet any threat, forge stronger alliances in the world, reduce the dependence on Mideast oil, and “…deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging” (JK.com) - in other words, a global, collaborative effort, rather than a unilateral one.

With what? Appeasement? He voted against the F-14. He voted against the F-15. He voted against the F-16. He voted against the F-117. He voted against the new Carrier Ronald Reagan. He has voted against every military tool we could think of.

Name one thing Kerry has done to reduce our dependence on oil other than the fact he has THREE HUGE SUV'S. As far as unitateral, your looking at looters not allies.

My Take: I go with Kerry on this one. As the 9/11 Commission report has pointed out, we are not in a struggle against states, we are in a struggle against an ideology. This is very similar to our Cold War struggle against communism. Yes, there were states that exemplified that struggle (the USSR, China) but we also were able to succeed at stemming the flow of the ideology throughout the world. Sometimes our methods were nefarious (propping up right wing dictators), but just as often, we succeeded through involvement in other countries; building schools, water systems, agricultural systems, bringing medicine, etc. In other words, we fought communism at ground level – and won.

WTF do you think we are trying to do right now dimwit? I find it amusing it was all "war for Oil" which was the mantra only a year ago. Where did that go?

To compare Communism to Radical Islam is just plain ignorant.

People were naturally drawn to what the U.S. represented. We won the hearts and minds. We also built up allegiances like NATO, which perhaps did more over time to bring the USSR to its knees than any other single act we accomplished.

That is rediculous. Nato was a nuclear counter threat and umbrella. We tried to let countries hold their own in freedom. You have no clue. Our weapons superiority and the people were fed up with communism toppled it. Yet, Kerry voted against every weapons system during that time. I just started to put the list together.

Eight presidents employed this continuing strategy against communism and won the Cold War. Why wouldn’t this same strategy work in the War on Terrorism?

Did the Soviet Union attack the WTC dimwit?

I believe the Bush doctrine will lead to the exact opposite response. By pulling the U.S. out of arms control agreements, he makes it more likely that rogue states or terrorists will get their hands on WMDs.

They allready have them. What are you totally ignorant?

By dropping allegiances, he turns former allies into competitors, or worse, enemies. By threatening unilateral, pre-emptive strikes, he encourages our enemies to prepare for war (read North Korea and Iran). He is also stepping away from a continuity of ideas that presidents of both parties have upheld since WWII.

The USA didn't drop any. They did, they want the Euro and let the USA hold the handle while they try to take over the world currency. The rest is bullshiat as well. North Korea has been Chinas proxy for decades, and Iran was supplied by Sudan. Go check it out dimwit.

The continuity of ideas is what we made the UN for, and they are in a 30 billion dollar scandal.

I recently read an article (July, New Yorker) written by a reporter in Waziristan, one of the ungovernable, tribal provinces of Pakistan on the Afghan border. The local khan took her to the one school available to the children of that province, many of whom had to travel for hours to attend. It was a madrassa, funded by the Saudis (among others), and taught Islamic fundamentalist Wahhabism. This is the pattern all over the poverty-stricken Arab world. Fundamentalism is the only game in town.

"Only game in town?". It WAS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN. The reason is, we can't take over Pakistan where Bin Laden is, because the Taliban is there and there is a danger that Musarreff will lose control of the country. What is wrong with you? Of course, the USA is responsible for these rodents.

What if the U.S. (with its allies) built a school in this province? A school with computers, the internet, books and supplies, Peace Corps teachers creating new, local teachers, etc.? The khan told her if he had an alternative school, that madrassa would collapse because the majority of parents in the region (like parents everywhere) would want their children to have a better life than they could give them. Madrassas offer suicide, an alternative school would offer a future.

What is wrong with you? The USA is trying to build schools all over the place. The Mosques tell the children to blow them up. You don't understand the concept of Islam whatsoever. There is no denial or disconsertion. It's absolute. It shows how little you understand. They will not let go of the power of the warlords and mullahs.

I also read an article about a Special Forces unit in Afghanistan who applied this method (on their own) in a village in Afghanistan. They built a school and a water system, set up a market with a money changing table, and provided security for the village. Their commander said it was the only way to win on the ground in Afghanistan, and the only way to get reliable information from the surrounding area. That unit was removed from Afghanistan and sent to Iraq.

Are you supposed to baby sit it forever? This just shows how your earlier arguments were fallacious. Everything is set up, but the terrorists tear it down.

But it's our fault right? Get a clue.

[Rohirrim]

Thank you for taking so much time, and expending so much energy - to entirely miss the point.

[RunByDesign]

The wholly apparent point, is that no reason has been afforded as to WHY any of Bushs' policies are any better...WHY we should retain him as President, amidst his perpetual blundering.

Therein lies the dilemna.

[mosca]

i really don't find a ton of difference in bush's and kerry's foreign policy plans, but the obvious thing that sticks out to me is that kerry wants to 'launch and lead a new era of alliances'. i see no specifics on how or in what way this will be done. and i don't think that germany, france, spain, etc. will just come running like lap dogs and want to restore old alliances simply because kerry is now president. he's gonna have to make some concessions to their desires to win them over, and i suspect that would be premature withdrawal from iraq and assurances that we will not attack terrorist/terrorist harboring nations without their or the UN's consent. i personally do not agree with this notion and would rather have a policy in place such as bush's that attempts to get international support in military actions but is prepared to go on without it if it's not there.

i will say that i totally agree on his idea to modernize the military and add troops. but i'm somewhat skeptical as to whether or not this will happen, judging from his past voting record. easy to proclaim one thing on the election trail and then not follow through with it. but based just on what's been said, it is a must need and also one thing that angers me about bush's war management, in particular supplies and logistics problems with the troops and also how the post saddam security aspect of the occupation was conducted. i would hope that the bush admin. would learn from this mistake if they are elected to a second term.

[Rohirrim]

At least Kerry has said he will move in the direction of restoring alliances. With Bush, you know there's not even a slim chance of it.

[football idiot]

how do we "KNOW" this?

what alliances are we talking about?

the entire world, with the exception of a few small terrorist states in the Middle East, are working with us to DESTROY terrorism. Just because a few politicians from a few corrupt countries bad-mouthed the war doesn't mean we are blacklisted by the world. it means that the companies that illegally traded weapons to Saddam for oil and the politicians they sent money to are unhappy with us. and we don't need those kinds of friends.

public opinion doesn't matter. half the people in this country are saying stupid hateful stuff about our president right now. but we're supposed to worry about what the French citizens think based on what they're spoonfed by state-controlled liberal media?

please.

the only country with a true FREE press is ours. we don't have the CBC, or the BBC, or whatever state programming they get in other countries, we have independent news networks that are uncensored and allowed to tell all kinds of stories that politicians were rather they didn't.

how is Kerry going to build these alliances, and what are they going to do for us? save us a few bucks on Champagne from FRANCE?

[Rohirrim]

Name a war the U.S. has won without major allies? (I'm not talking Bulgaria and Poland) Yes, we need France in Iraq. Also Russia and Germany. We need to rebuild and reinforce the alliance of the West if we want to influence the rest of the world with our ideas. Like Kennedy said, we're only 6% of the world's population. We can't go it alone. No matter what Bush and his cabal thinks.

And Bush is getting the press (and comments) that his actions have earned. He is a bungler - on a world-class scale.

[football idiot]

a press that sensationalizes and blows every little thing out of proportion.

we didn't want the French's help in WWI and WWII. They've been reputed as cowards ever since Napoleon (a foreigner that took over France from within) suffered his last defeat.

The Russians and Germans? Do they even have a military force left to speak of? I know that the Warsaw pact seriously prohibited Germany from ever becoming a world threat militarily again. Russia is a fraction of its former self, with a few thousand decaying nuclear weapons and a bunch of military technology that is either obsolete or ill-maintained.

With our military superiority war with any nation on the planet does not scare me.

And even those who don't support the war are working with us to thwart the terrorists that are hiding in their homelands.

If Bush is a bungler (and other than an unfortunate public speaker, I'm not sure what he's 'bungled') how do we know Kerry is going to accomplish all this crap he's promising?

[Rohirrim]

It's not just a matter of what these countries can do militarily, although both Russia and Germany still have strong militaries. France is also strong, contrary to popular belief - ever hear of the Mirage? It's a matter of having a Western coalition that expresses a voice in the world. We still have China to deal with. Maybe not now, but down the road for sure. The way to really combat terrorism, by moving the Arab world into the 20th century, and combatting their influence in Africa and Europe, not to mention the Middle East, will not be accomplished by military power alone. Face the facts, we'll have to build schools that combat the message of the madrassas. We'll have to help with power supplies, water supplies, agriculture, etc. That's will lead to the long term victory. Military forces won't. For that program, we'll need help.

[Crushaholic]

Like it or not, the United States is the leader of the free world. We have maintained that position for a long time. IMO, a good leader is someone who does what they think is the right direction for the people. Bush tried to get the support of countries such as Germany and France. He could have gone to war before he did. They refused to come along with us. At some point, a leader has to lead and make tough decisions.

The policy of containment in the Cold War has cost us billions of dollars throughout the years. We were engaged in a staredown contest with the Soviet Union that spread fear, misinformation and general paranoia amongst the population. We were much better when the Soviet Union collapsed when Reagan forced the issue.

The policy of preemptive strike, IMO, came about partly as a response to the criticism from the left that Bush could have done more to prevent 9/11. Now, we hit before they get a chance to hit us. I feel much safer in that situation, rather than play the reactionary role. Who knows how many Americans will die if the bastards hit us again? That's not a risk I want to take.

[Rohirrim]

Let's try looking at this with a little bit of logic.

First, we know that Wolfowitz had plans to attack Iraq ready to go in 1992. We also know that the members of the current Bush team (Cheney, Rummy, et al) were all on board.

Second, we know that Bush was getting reports from Blix/Kay that they did not believe in the existance of WMDs in Iraq.

Third, the other Western powers (incl. Russia) wanted the inspection regime to continue to its natural conclusion before committing forces.

Add it up: The Bush team knows where Blix/Kay is headed (and they're damn right, as we now know). They also know if they keep waiting, their excuse for invading Iraq is likely to evaporate.

The other Western powers are fully aware of what kind of game is being played - and they don't want to play it.

Bush drums up "mushroom clouds" only "forty five minutes away." Fear takes control of our country. Powell's arm is twisted by Cheney to go lie to the UN. Bush launches the attack. We now know the whole thing was complete No WMDs. No Al Queda. 900+ Americans dead.

And what has Iraq led to? More instability in the region. More Al Queda recruits. More terrorism being spread through the internet to new cells. Arab fanatics flocking to the OBL banner.

And France, Russia and Germany are all a bunch of wussies - right?

[plummerrox]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And France, Russia and Germany are all a bunch of wussies - right?

right

[Spider]

[Exile_In_SJ]

What allies did we lose that actually do anything for us? We retain the most important ones. Britain and Australia. What do France and Germany do for us as so called allies?
Nothing militarily.

France and Germany abandoned us and need to get back in our good graces. France did everything they could to defeat us diplomatically. They need to mend the fences. We don't need France for anything. Nothing, nada.

Germany let's us base troops on it's soil. It's a mutually beneficial situation, but we are even now thinking of removing them which makes Germany less important. But even as Germany oppoed the liberation of Iraq, they've done nothing hard to damage the alliance.

It's basically France which did the harm, and Heinz-Kerry wants to go hat in hand and beg forgiveness from the french.

Even the russians who aren't really our allies are looking into sending troops to Iraq.

We don't need to repair alliances, it's a fallacy put out by Heinz-Kerry

[Exile_In_SJ]

Iraq is now free and will be holding elections. Afghanistan is now free and building democracy, with the majority of Afghans registering to vote. Yeah there are terrorists, but, they will be and are being dealt with as they show up.

Millions of Iraqis have been freed from tyranny as have Afghanis...

900 dead American soldiers? A bad thing, to be sure, but 5000 American soldiers died on D-Day trying to free France. The region will e better off with a democratic Iraq in the region, then after Iraq, a democratic Iran, A democratic Syria...Democracy has never been free. We sacrificed to make Germany and Japan the thriving democracies they are today. The world is better off because of it. The world will be better off for our efforts today, it may take a while, but it will be better off.

[Rascal]

Ever heard of the mirage? The French are still strong?

Are you kidding me? Besides having a somewhat respectable special forces corp everything, and yes I mean everything is laughable. They probably wouldn't be able to defend themselves if Iraq had invaded them prior to desert storm 1.

Hell, they would see the mass of troops and throw up the white flag, move to foreign countries and buy people to defend their country.

Germany and France are so imbedded in that UN scandel that any foreign policy that rests on getting support for them is dumb. They are the definition of corrupted government.

[Exile_In_SJ]

France may have even aided in the Rwandan genocide... France is not an ally we want to have.

[Rohirrim]

Still ignoring the points of logic from my post I see - about what led up to an unnecessary war that is doing us more harm than good, regardless of what debatable good it does for Iraq.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

It's not just a matter of what these countries can do militarily, although both Russia and Germany still have strong militaries. France is also strong, contrary to popular belief - ever hear of the Mirage? It's a matter of having a Western coalition that expresses a voice in the world. We still have China to deal with. Maybe not now, but down the road for sure. The way to really combat terrorism, by moving the Arab world into the 20th century, and combatting their influence in Africa and Europe, not to mention the Middle East, will not be accomplished by military power alone. Face the facts, we'll have to build schools that combat the message of the madrassas. We'll have to help with power supplies, water supplies, agriculture, etc. That's will lead to the long term victory. Military forces won't. For that program, we'll need help.

Do you realize that France held joint naval operations with China this year?
France's influence in Africa is purely negative being a former brutal colonial power there.

[Rascal]

Doing us more harm than good?

I'm pretty sure WWII was doing us a lot of harm at the moment, but people realized the benefits if we stayed the course.

A democratic Iraq with ties to the US is a very beneficial thing. It won't be easy but worth the effort.

Since neither of us have a time machine, neither one of us can know for sure and only have our political biasness to decide for us which side to take.

[Exile_In_SJ]

I disagree that it's doing us more harm than good. Basic difference of opinion.

[Rohirrim]

And what has Iraq led to? More instability in the region. More Al Queda recruits. More terrorism being spread through the internet to new cells. Arab fanatics flocking to the OBL banner.

Like I said. The future is now. Opinion and fact are two different things, whether you want to believe it or not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let's try looking at this with a little bit of logic.

First, we know that Wolfowitz had plans to attack Iraq ready to go in 1992. We also know that the members of the current Bush team (Cheney, Rummy, et al) were all on board.

Second, we know that Bush was getting reports from Blix/Kay that they did not believe in the existance of WMDs in Iraq.

Third, the other Western powers (incl. Russia) wanted the inspection regime to continue to its natural conclusion before committing forces.

Don't forget #4:

Both Powell and Rice are on record in 2/01 stating that Saddam was not a threat and had been successfully disarmed. Their statements were caught on film. (See "Fahrenheit 9/11.")