It is pretty much an open secret that a Kerry election will not mean any radical changes to U.S. foreign policy. Peaceniks who are hoping for a sudden withdrawal from Iraq will be disappointed.

However, under Kerry, foreign policy would shift away from unilateralism and toward alliance-building. As he himself says:

Throughout our history, we have forged powerful alliances to defend, encourage, and promote that idea around the world. Through two World Wars, the Cold War, the Gulf War and Kosovo, America led instead of going it alone. We respected the world - and the world respected us.

Today, our leadership has walked away from more than a century of American leadership in the world to embrace a new - and dangerously ineffective - American disregard for the world. They bully instead of persuade. They act alone when they could assemble a team. They confuse leadership with going it alone. They fail to understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you.

John Kerry and John Edwards believe in a better, stronger America - an America that is respected, not just feared. An America that listens and leads - that cherishes freedom, safeguards our people, uplifts others, forges alliances, and deserves respect. This is the America they believe in. This is the America they are fighting for. And this is the America we can be.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Posted by: Forrest at August 29, 2004 05:30 PM

After reading the block quote, I expected a serious, statesmanlike article loaded with substance. What a disappointment; it reads more like a position statement edited by Sid Blumenthal. For example, this snarky quote on page 2;

We can and must engage thoughtfully, strategically, and firmly. Nowhere is the need more clear or urgent than in North Korea.

But the Bush administration has offered only a merry-go-round policy: Bush and his advisers got up on their high horse, whooped and hollered, rode around in circles, and ended up right back where they’d started. By suspending the talks initiated by the Clinton administration, asking for talks but with new conditions, refusing to talk under the threat of nuclear blackmail, and then reversing that refusal as North Korea’s master of brinkmanship upped the ante, the administration sowed confusion and put the despot Kim Jong Il in the driver’s seat. By publicly taking military force, negotiations, and sanctions off the table, the administration tied its own hands behind its back.

Now, finally, the Bush administration is rightly working with allies in the region—acting multilaterally—to pressure Pyongyang. It’s gotten off the merry-go-round; the question is why one would ever want to be so driven by unilateralist dogma to get on in the first place.

Can’t this guy make a point without sounding like Paul Begala? I don’t expect Kerry to acknowledge that Clinton, Albright, and Jimmy Carter are responsible for the fix we are in with N. Korea, but he could at least try to sound Presidential while ignoring reality.

Lastly, didn’t Kerry later criticize Bush for NOT acting unilaterally in resolving the North Korean nuclear issue? Or was that before this article? I forget.

Posted by: ter0 at August 29, 2004 05:37 PM

Both (a few) Bouquets and (rather more) Brickbats on this one.

It is now common knowledge that crucial intercepts from September 10, 2001, weren’t translated until two days later because of severe understaffing at U.S. intelligence agencies.

Um…given Senator Kerry’s record of consistently cutting funds to the Intelligence community, he might just add a Mea Culpa here. But water under the bridge, better late than never etc.

To remedy this intelligence deficit, U.S. college campuses need to overcome a Vietnam-era mind-set that demonizes the CIA and FBI.

Well that will go down like the proverbial Lead Balloon in the halls of Academe… Can you imagine if Bush had said something like that? Still, it’s true, and Kudos to him for saying so in public. How he’d go about doing something about teh situation is another matter. I see no sign that the Democrats have lifted a single finger so far.

Outdated military equipment may please defense contractors, but it won’t win tomorrow’s battles. A modern military means smarter, more versatile equipment; better intelligence; advanced communications; long-range air power; and highly mobile ground forces.

See Kerry’s Record on new defence systems. Again, better late than never. A Leopard can’t change his spots, but Kerry’s a Chameleon. The question is, once elected, would he change back at the first whiff of opposition in his party?

The globalization of the last decade proved that simple measures like buying books and teaching family planning can do much to expose, rebut, isolate, and defeat apostles of hate.

I’d go further, this is the only way to win in the Long Term. Kerry is right on the button with this one, more power to him. Is Bush? To some degree, but not as much as I’d like. Would Kerry be in practice? Good question. Maybe.

In 1989, as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations…

And look at what a spectacular success the War on Drugs has been. And how Terrorism in 2001 did not have any roots in, say, OBLs career in the late 80’s.

Kerry joined with 44 other Senate Democrats to vote against the 1991 resolution on the Use of Force Against Iraq, arguing that economic sanctions should be given more time to work before “rushing headlong into war.”

Is there anyone out there who seriously believes that Saddam would have vacated Kuwait because of sanctions? Or that the sanctions would not have resulted in far worse conditions for Iraqi civilians? Or even that massacres of Kuwaitis wouldn’t have happened, as they do to Kurds and Shi’ites both before and after? In fact, is there anybody who doesn’t think this is a spectacular act of misjudgement?

It would be difficult to find someone in the US congress who has gotten things so consistently, dramatically, even spectacularly wrong on so many issues over the last two decades. Now mistakes make the best experience, and experience makes the best teacher. But it says nothing for his judgement.

Posted by: aebrain at August 29, 2004 11:11 PM

That, Alan my friend, is why we haven’t elected a Senator to be President since Johnson. They don’t have the experience in executive decision-making to be effective. Apparently, the compromise swamp that is the Senate is very effective at sucking the backbone and/or principle out of anybody that stays there long enough or has greater ambitions.

Posted by: TL at August 30, 2004 12:00 AM

Kerry must overcome two problems, First it is believed by some that the Democrats truly are the party of domestic issues. So speaking out about foriegn affairs is an important task for the good senator.

next he has to somehow position his nascent foreign policy far enough to the left to keep the deaniacs in line and enough to the center to avoid alienating too many otherwise rational folks.

Posted by: skip at August 30, 2004 11:52 AM