Hi,

Although this article is almost six months old,

pass it along. I think the author makes some very good points.
I am posting it with the author's permission.



John Kerry and the War on Terrorism
Written by Anthony Stahelski
Sunday, April 25, 2004




Political prognosticators predict a very close 2004
presidential election, which means that Senator John Kerry might
be sworn in as president in January of 2005. Given this
possibility, it is worth asking what might happen to the
prosecution of the War on Terrorism in a Kerry administration.
There are reasons to think that it would falter.

A vigorous Kerry continuation of the War on Terrorism is
unlikely due to the recent history of the Democratic Party. The
old Democratic Party of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy
no longer exists. During their administrations the Democratic
Party was the interventionist party in the United States. Then
Democrats favored an assertive foreign policy, and they were
willing to use military force to overthrow dictatorships and
spread democracy. However, the Vietnam War dramatically changed
the philosophy and direction of the Democratic Party.
Democrats, bearing primary responsibility for the war, banished
the interventionists who were perceived to be responsible for
our involvement in Vietnam. This allowed the party to be taken
over by pacifistic isolationists, and they have controlled the
Democratic Party ever since.

Senator Kerry's personal history reflects the history of
his party. He served with distinction in combat during the
Vietnam War. In spite of his wartime record, in 1970 he joined
a radical leftwing pacifist organization, Vietnam Veterans
against the War. The extremism of this organization is
demonstrated both by numbers (it had only 7000 members out of a
potential pool of 9,000,000 Vietnam era veterans) and by
behavior. As a member, Kerry generically accused American
soldiers in Vietnam of routinely committing atrocities against
civilians, without citing specific evidence or specific
incidents. He participated in antiwar demonstrations with Jane
Fonda, who continues to be the American most hated by current
active duty military personnel.

In his career in the Senate Kerry has continued to
demonstrate pacifist anti-military tendencies. In the early
1990s Kerry was accused by journalists of suppressing evidence
that the North Vietnamese government continued to imprison
American soldiers after the end of the Vietnam War. He has
consistently voted against technological upgrades and new
weapons systems for our military. Therefore, it is likely that
President Kerry would have difficulty as commander-in-chief
because, like Clinton, he would never have the respect of those
in uniform.

Based on his record as a left wing extremist and as the
most liberal member of the Senate, it is likely that Kerry would
do the following if he were elected president. In a Kerry
administration, American military forces would be committed
abroad only under the United Nations banner. The problems with
this approach are multiple. The United Nations is a Tower of
Babel, and it can only take effective action when the United
States leads by example, not when we pretend to simply be one of
many. The United Nations serves as a public relations front for
the world's remaining dictatorships, such as China, who disguise
their genocidal activities and pretend to be civilized nations.
Furthermore, France and Russia use their Security Council vetoes
to stifle effective counter-terrorism actions in order to
disguise their own agendas, which include selling nuclear
technology to terrorism-sponsoring countries like Iran.

And, given his rhetoric over the last two years, Kerry
would be unlikely to renew the Patriot Act, in spite of voting
for it as a senator. Instead, he would deprive law enforcement
and intelligence officials of the tools they need in the
exceedingly difficult task of monitoring, pursuing, and
convicting terrorists. Kerry would not support the proactive
Bush doctrine of preemptively pursuing and interdicting
terrorists before they attack. He is likely to reduce our troop
commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he is unlikely to
militarily intervene in any additional terrorism-sponsoring
countries. Kerry is likely to return to the reactive and
appeasing policies of the Clinton administration. He would wait
for a terrorist attack to occur and then he would respond
symbolically and ineffectively, similar to Clinton's cruise
missile response to the 1998 embassy bombings. Kerry would
likely return to a carrots-only policy to get North Korea and
Iran to dismantle their nuclear weapons programs, based on the
incredibly naïve assumption that dictators will be good if we
are good to them.

The most horrifying reality confronting the civilized
world right now is the possibility that terrorist groups can
acquire or manufacture weapons of mass destruction. All other
issues are insignificant by comparison. Consequently we can
never return to a reactive counter-terrorism policy. Democrats,
still assuaging their Vietnam-induced guilt, cannot be trusted
to proactively prosecute the War on Terrorism. Whatever other
virtues Senator Kerry may have, his inherent pacifism and
predictable reactivity to terrorist threats makes him
unqualified to be a wartime president.

Dr. Stahelski is director of the Organization Development
Program at Central Washington University in Ellensbug,
Washington. He receives e-mail at:
[see original article link for author's e-mail address]

Copyright © 2004 ChronWatch. All rights reserved.

Original URL:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7050