Is this the path to a stronger America?
I think John Kerry has a problem: the liberal base of his supporters has one view about foreign policy, and swing voters who are undecided have a completely opposite view. Kerry needs the support of both groups to win the election, but there isn't a position that will satisfy both of them. Or is there?
One of the key issues in US foreign policy is Iraq. (This subject has been heavily debated, so I do not want to rehash the arguments for and against the war here.) One question facing Americans today knowing what we know now is whether invading Iraq was a mistake or a good decision. I have seen three positions on the issue:
1. Invading Iraq was a mistake because it was a bad idea to invade Iraq.
2. Invading Iraq was a mistake because we didn't have the support of some of our allies (France/Russia/Germany) and so we had to shoulder too much of the burden.
3. Invading Iraq with the allies we had was a good decision.
Most liberal Democrats agree with position #1. I think John Kerry supports position #2. George Bush supports position #3. I think #1 and #3 are clear-cut positions. The people who believe in #1 would be against the war even if France approved it. The people who hold position #3 think it is the right thing to do even though France voted against it. The problem with position #2 is that the question of whether a particular action is good policy or not is determined by what France/Germany/Russia think of it.
Either way, the decision about whether to go to war in Iraq has serious consequences. Going to war means the loss of lives. Not going to war means that Saddam would stay in power. It's a tough decision, but I don't think it is strong leadership to say that the right decision depends on what France decides.
The $87 billion has already been mentioned many times. I don't want to regurgitate GOP sound-bytes, but I would like to point out the context of the vote. At the time, the Democratic Primary was on, and Howard Dean was gaining momentum by criticizing the war in Iraq. He said that Democrats needed to be against the war and stand up to President Bush, and that most of the other nominees weren't doing that. It was speculated at the time that if Kerry and Edwards, both primary candidates at the time, were to vote for the President's proposal of $87 billion, it would play right into Dean's message. I am concerned that when the time came to send money to fund our troops, Kerry and Edwards decided to send a political message to anti-war Democrats.
John Kerry announced a plan to increase the military by 40,000 people. I haven't seen the details of this proposal, but it sounds like a good idea. Kerry added a caveat though. He said that he would not send these troops to Iraq. This doesn't make sense to me. If we are going to get more troops, why would he promise not to send them to the place where we have the biggest commitment, the most fighting, and the most casualties? Looking at it through the lens of political calculation, it might make sense. There are some Democrats who favor sending more troops to Iraq. The anti-war activists however would loathe the idea.
John Kerry is right that foreign policy has complex problems. That doesn't mean we need contradictory or ambiguous solutions. We need to honest debate about how to make America stronger. We need to be focused on America's security, not glancing at war protestors out of the corner of our eye.