Thursday, October 21, 2004


The Washington Post ran a story on John Kerry that is rather interesting.

In Senate debates and media interviews over the years, John F. Kerry has repeatedly returned to three axioms on the use of military force: Win as much allied support as possible before going to war, listen to advice from the professionals, and, most significant, heed the many lessons of the Vietnam War.

Actually, I happen to agree with Senator Kerry on these points. We SHOULD try and win our allies supprt. We SHOULD listen to our professional soldiers and we SHOULD learn lessons from Vietnam. I don't think there is anything to disagee with here.

But, we come to a parting with this,
Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

So, let me get this right, it's okay to die fighting for the U.N. and not okay to fight and die for ones country? Am I missing something or is that what he is saying? For all his talk about not giving up the sovereignty of this country, his past words and deeds sure do go a long way to doing just that.

A good point is brought up on the issue of coalitions in this article
Conservatives argue that Kerry's emphasis on multilateralism would result in weak coalitions unable to further U.S. interests.

"What it means, practically, is that you always go to the lowest common denominator," said Tom Donnelly, a defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute, "so whatever the least willing member of the coalition is willing to do, that defines the policy."

And Dale brings up another good point over at Q and O.
It’s no accident that his priority list starts with getting allied support in the number one spot. But the key priority in warfare isn’t to get allies, as helpful as they can be. The number one priority is to engage the enemy, to kill his forces, to disrupt his supply lines, and to destroy his ability to fight. If the attempt to gain more allies pre-empts that, then all the allies in the world won’t prevent your defeat.

I agree with Dale, to a point, he used the words " in warfare" and in those circumstances, I agree, when we are already at war, we go in to win. But BEFORE the war starts, we should go to our allies.

Let me make this perfectly clear, I am NOT saying we should ask permission, our security is our business and WE should make the decisions on what needs to be done. What I am saying is, we go to our allies, make it perfectly clear on what we intend to do, and ask if they would like to join us. IF they choose to join us, they go in knowing what we are going to do from start to finish. Then we don't have the problem that the article spoke of.