Monday, June 21, 2004

From yesterday's Los Angeles Times, somebody else who's figured out that "Progressive Internationalism" -- John Kerry's tag for his foreign policy strategy -- is virtually identical to that of George W. Bush.
Not only has Kerry firmly surrounded himself with Clinton standard-bearers on foreign policy and defense, but he has espoused his own brand of warmongering.

I would love nothing better than to see Bush out of office, but Kerry is a gloomy alternative. Worse yet, in the short term, his "me too, only better" approach to the war on terrorism could actually serve to make the United States less safe.

Kerry's defense plans might be a slam-dunk for the atherosclerotic set in the national security community, but here is the alternative that the senator offers to Democrats and people of liberal values in November:

� no plan to withdraw from Iraq, not even the kind of "secret plan" the late President Nixon offered on Vietnam, and no change in Afghanistan;

� continuation of Bush's preemption policy;

� a larger military with many more special operations units, plus accelerated spending on "transformation," which in today's defense jargon means creation of greater capability to intervene around the world on short notice;

� a new domestic intelligence agency and a vastly beefed-up homeland security program.
Kevin Drum complains that the author provides no alternative to Bush Lite -- and seems to think there isn't one out there. Well, here's the General's take. Kerry's biggest problem is his fundamental agreement with Bush that the #1 security threat to the United States is from terrorists with WMDs.

As the LA Times article continues,
when Kerry describes the contemporary world, and the challenges that the U.S. faces, he sounds just like the president, the vice president and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Terrorism, he says, "present[s] the central national security challenge of our generation." Preventing terrorists from "gaining weapons of mass murder" is his No. 1 security goal, and Kerry says he would strike first if any attack "appears imminent."
How about some alternatives for #1?
climate change;
� oil dependency;
� destabilized nuclear powers, especially Pakistan and North Korea;
� non-WMD foreign terrorism (i.e. the only kind that ever really happens);


At 12:59 PM, Blogger Chibi said...

Great post! I'll vote for Kerry because Bush, well, what can you say? The list of reasons is long to get his and his cronies' grubby little fingers off the levers of power. But the alternative leaves something to be desired, no? It's like having to choose between Coke and Pepsi, when what I really want is some water. And boy am I ever thirsty these days!


Post a Comment

<< Home