« Just Wondering | Main | Kerry's Theme »

March 05, 2004

The Kerry Doctrine--Such as it is

Armed Liberal has posted a John Kerry speech on foreign policy over at Winds of Change, and he’s got some great comments regarding where he agrees and disagrees with Kerry. At the risk of playing Salieri to his Mozart, I’m going to follow in his footsteps because A.L. and I don’t always agree, and there are some aspects of Kerry’s speech I’d like to get into as I continue to examine the man to see if he might be acceptable enough on the issue of the war to make voting for him in November feasible.

It’s an honor to be here today at the Burkle Center ... named in honor of a good friend and one of America’s outstanding business leaders.
Day in and day out, George W. Bush reminds us that he is a war President and that he wants to make national security the central issue of this election. I am ready to have this debate. I welcome it.
I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure ... with a stronger, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy for winning the War on Terror than the Bush Administration has ever envisioned.
As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don't know if the latest reports ... saying that he is surrounded ... are true or not. We've heard this news before.
We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead, called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job. We all hope the outcome will be different this time and we all know America cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.

I certainly agree that President Bush erred in not putting more U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan when we were closing the ring around Tora Bora. I’m not convinced, however, that we can’t rest until ObL is dead or captured; I think he’s already dead, actually, but even if he’s not, killing him without taking on the root causes of radical Islam really will only give us a minor victory at best. Does Kerry understand this?

And when that day comes, it will be a great step forward but we will still have far more to do. It will be a victory in the War on Terror, but it will not be the end of the War on Terror.
This war isn't just a manhunt ... a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.
As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified: "They are not all creatures of bin Laden, and so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership, they pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks."
At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.
The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.

OK, this is a promising line. Let’s see how he proposes to resolve the issue.

Like all Americans, I responded to President Bush’s reassuring words in the days after September 11th. But since then, his actions have fallen short.
I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.
Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations. Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.
In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons ... weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment. The President’s budget for the National Endowment for Democracy’s efforts around the world, including the entire Islamic world, is less than three percent of what this Administration gives Halliburton ... hardly a way to win the contest of ideas.

Finally, by virtually every measure, we still have a homeland security strategy that falls far short of the vulnerabilities we have and the threats we face.

I see plenty of complaints here, but there’s something missing: what John Kerry would do differently. It’s all well and good to say that you opponent isn’t doing the right things, but if you can’t tell me what the right things are, then we’re not really making any progress.

George Bush has no comprehensive strategy for victory in the War on Terror ... only an ad hoc strategy to keep our enemies at bay. If I am Commander-in-Chief, I would wage that war by putting in place a strategy to win it.
We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.
But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military ... but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

Which of these things aren’t the Bush Administration doing? Other than the ‘renewed alliances’ platitude, I don’t see anything Kerry is offering that the Bush Administration isn’t already doing. ‘Using every tool at our disposal’ isn’t a comprehensive strategy, it’s an ad for Craftsman.

Certainly we’re better off with allies than without them, but some idea of where to draw the line would be nice. Does Kerry really believe that President Bush should have chosen not to invade Iraq rather than lose our dubious ‘alliances’ with France and Germany? And if so, how is this not letting them tie our hands? There’s an argument to be made here, but Kerry doesn’t seem to be making it.

Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake ... not theirs. We can't wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines, or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets.

It was local law enforcement working with our intelligence services which caught Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramsi Bin al Shibh in Pakistan and the murderer known as Hambali in Thailand. Joining with local police forces didn't mean serving these terrorists with legal papers; it meant throwing them behind bars. None of the progress we have made would have been possible without cooperation ... and much more would be possible if we had a President who didn't alienate long-time friends and fuel anti-American anger around the world.

We need a comprehensive approach for prevailing against terror ... an approach that recognizes the many facets of this mortal challenge and relies on all the tools at our disposal to do it.
First, if I am President I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. George Bush inherited the strongest military in the world ... and he has weakened it. What George Bush and his armchair hawks have never understood is that our military is about more than moving pins on a map or buying expensive new weapons systems.
America’s greatest military strength has always been the courageous, talented men and women whose love of country and devotion to service lead them to attempt and achieve the impossible everyday.
But today, far too often troops are going into harm’s way without the weapons and equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely. National Guard helicopters are flying missions in dangerous territory without the best available ground-fire protection systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire.
And families across America have had to collect funds from their neighbors to buy body armor for their loved ones in uniform because George Bush failed to provide it.

There’s no doubt President Bush has weakened the military; so would President Kerry, in all likelihood, unless he chose not to use it. As for the question of the equipment, Kerry would be wise not to push this issue too hard: he surely knows that the President doesn’t make that kind of procurement decision. It was the Army’s leaders who chose to spend their limited funds on things other than body armor and uparmored Humvees. And there are other things that the Army is scrimping on now in order to buy the body armor and uparmored Humvees; I suspect Kerry would rather not be held responsible for those shortfalls if they were to arise under his stewardship. The issue of properly equipping the military is a valid one, and President Bush has some vulnerability on it, but I don’t see Kerry really offering a solution here.

The next President must ensure that our forces are structured for maximum effectiveness and provided with all that they need to succeed in their missions. We must better prepare our forces for post-conflict operations and the task of building stability by adding more engineers, military police, psychological warfare personnel, and civil affairs teams.
And to replenish our overextended military, as President, I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade.

This I like. If we’re going to simply maintain our current level of forces around the world, we need more active duty troops, as I’ve been saying for some time. Of course, the question of funding remains open, as it does for his promise to ‘properly equip’ our forces. That’s billions of dollars he’s talking about for military programs, and I’m not sure how trustworthy he is to actually follow through on this.

Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act.

Sounds great, but I don’t hear any discussion of how he’s going to do it. This is one of those things we all agree on in the abstract: should kids have a good education? Sure. How? Kerry needs to tell us how he’s going to do this, not just assert that it will magically happen under his guidance.

But the challenge for us is not to cooperate abroad; it is to coordinate here at home. Whether it was September 11th or Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, we have endured unprecedented intelligence failures. We must do what George Bush has refused to do ... reform our intelligence system by making the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets. We must train more analysts in languages like Arabic. And we must break down the old barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement.

In the months leading up to September 11th, two of the hijackers were arrested for drunk driving ... and another was stopped for speeding and then let go, although he was already the subject of an arrest warrant in a neighboring county and was on a federal terrorist watch list. We need to simplify and streamline the multiple national terrorist watch lists and make sure the right information is available to the right people on the frontlines of preventing the next attack.

I like the idea of making the CIA chief a true director of national intelligence, but I’m less sanguine about melding intelligence and law enforcement. Having intelligence agencies keep law enforcement informed about potential threats from abroad is great, but I’d rather not live in a country where our intelligence agencies spend more (any) time watching American citizens than rooting out foreign threats.

But we can't take any of those steps effectively if we are stuck with an Administration that continues to stonewall those who are trying to get to the bottom of our September 11th intelligence failures. Two days ago, the Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert refused the request of the bipartisan 9-11 commission for just a little more time just to complete their mission. This after the Commission has had to deal with an Administration that opposed its very creation and has stonewalled its efforts.
He didn't hesitate to pick up the phone and call Denny Hastert to ram through his Medicare drug company benefit or to replace a real Patients Bill of Rights with an HMO Bill of Goods. This President told a Republican fundraiser that it was in the "nation’s interest" that Denny Hastert remain Speaker of the House. I believe it’s in America’s interest to know the truth about 9-11. Mr. President, stop stonewalling the commission and stop hiding behind excuses. Pick up the phone, call your friend Denny Hastert and tell him to let the commission finish its job so we can make America safer.
Third, we must cut off the flow of terrorist funds. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

Fourth, because finding and defeating terrorist groups is a long-term effort, we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I propose to appoint a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons. We must develop common standards to make sure dangerous materials and armaments are tracked, accounted for, and secured. Today, parts of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market.

Wow, it’s so important, he’s going to get a commission together to talk about it. I feel safer already. How about some specifics about what you’re going to do about North Korea’s bombs, John? What about Iran? Or will this vaunted commission solve all the problems in due time? This kind of crap suggests to me that Kerry isn’t really serious about this.

Next, whatever we thought of the Bush Administration’s decisions and mistakes ... especially in Iraq ... we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price everyday.

And our safety at home may someday soon be endangered as Iraq becomes a training ground for the next generation of terrorists.

It is time to return to the United Nations and return America to the community of nations to share both authority and responsibility in Iraq, and take the target off the back of our troops. This also requires a genuine Iraqi security force. The Bush Administration simply signs up recruits and gives them rudimentary training. In a Kerry Administration, we will create and train an Iraqi security force equal to the task of safeguarding itself and the people it is supposed to protect.
We must offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions. And we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.

This would be the UN that already fled the country? And you want to hand over primary responsibility to them? I like the fact Kerry understands that we’ve got to finish our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think he’s dead-on when he says we need a true Iraqi security force in Iraq. But then he blows his credibility with this invocation of the UN, which tells me he’s not serious about this either.

In Afghanistan, we have some NATO involvement, but the training of the Afghan Army is insufficient to disarm the warlord militias or to bring the billion dollar drug trade under control. This Administration has all but turned away from Afghanistan. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country. His latest budget scorns that commitment.
We must ... and if I am President, I will ... apply the wisdom Franklin Roosevelt shared with the American people in a fireside chat in 1942, "it is useless to win battles if the cause for which we fight these battles is lost. It is useless to win a war unless it stays won." This Administration has not met that challenge; a Kerry Administration will.
But nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas. In failed states from South Asia to the Middle East to Central Africa, the combined weight of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education, and rapid population growth presents the potential for explosive violence and the enlistment of entire new legions of terrorists. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, almost sixty percent of the population is under the age of 30, unemployed and unemployable, in a breeding ground for present and future hostility. And according to a Pew Center poll, fifty percent or more of Indonesians, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Palestinians have confidence in bin Laden to "do the right thing regarding world affairs."

We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda. And we must support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grass-roots up. Democracy won't come overnight, but America should speed that day by sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments which take genuine steps towards change.

It’s great that Kerry recognizes the importance of winning the war of ideas, but it’s going to take more than public diplomacy to win it. It’s going to require a combination of public victories and private pressure on states like Saudi Arabia. As long as they’re funding Wahhabist Madrassas around the world, the war of ideas can be no more than stalemated.

We cannot be deterred by letting America be held hostage by energy from the Middle East. If I am President, we will embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future ... to make this country energy independent of Mideast oil within ten years. So our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it.

So it’s Kerry’s position that the terrorists will leave us alone if we just don’t buy any more foreign oil? He’s either stupid (unlikely) or he thinks we’re stupid (probable). Either way, he doesn’t sound like somebody I want running American foreign policy.

Finally, if we are going to be serious about the War on Terror, we need to be much more serious about homeland security. Today, fire departments only have enough radios for half their firefighters and almost two-thirds of firehouses are short-staffed. We should not be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in New York City. We need to put 100,000 more firefighters on duty and we need to restore the 100,000 police on our streets which I fought for and won in 1994 but which the Bush Administration has cut in budget after budget.

The only homeland security that’s really going to do us any good is going after the radical Islamists and killing them. Federalizing a bunch of local functions may be a great opportunity to spread pork around, but at best all it does is make sure we’ve got more public workers on hand to pick up the pieces when the next attack strikes us.

We need to provide public health labs with the basic expertise they need but now lack to respond to chemical or biological attack. We need new safeguards for our chemical and nuclear facilities.
And our ports ... like the Port of Los Angeles ... need new technology to screen the 95 percent of containers that now enter this country without any inspection at all. And we should accelerate the action plans agreed to in US-Canada and US-Mexico "smart border" accords while implementing new security measures for cross border bridges. President Bush says we can't afford to fund homeland security. I say we can't afford not to.

The safety of our people, the security of our country, the memory of our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, neighbors and heroes we lost on September 11th call on us to win this war we did not seek.

Hey, that sounds great, but I haven’t seen how you’re going to do it yet.

And our children’s future demands that we also do everything in our power to prevent the creation of tomorrow’s terrorists today. Maybe there’s no going back to the days before baggage checks and orange alerts. Maybe they're with us forever. But I don't believe they have to be. I grew up at a time of bomb shelters and air raid drills. But America had leaders of vision and courage in both parties. And today, the Cold War is memory, not reality.
I believe we can bring a real victory in the War on Terror. I believe we must, not only for ourselves but for all who look to America as "the last best hope of earth." I believe we can meet that ideal ... and that’s why I'm running for President.

Not exactly what I was hoping for.
I don’t need a President who is perfect on the war, since I recognize that’s not possible. And it’s still possible Kerry could be acceptable, although this speech does more to make me think he’d be a lousy choice. I need Kerry to tell me his plan for winning the war. I don’t need to here him give me a breakdown of precisely what he’ll do, but I do require a little more detail than a hand wave. And that’s what this speech is: a hand wave. If Kerry has a real plan for defeating radical Islam, it can’t be found here. And as long as he keeps it to himself, I can’t endorse him as a realistic presidential candidate.