The Kerry Record: Help of Allies Among Three Key Themes

from JoeUser Forums
The linked article is a balanced article on Kerry's beliefs regarding foreign policy, and his record. I recommend a look -- it's fairly short. For those of us who believe the Bush doctrine has failed, it's informative to get to know the alternative.

From the Washington Post:
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.

NATO and the United Nations appear to be touchstones for the Democratic nominee, not just the troublesome hurdles that they appear to be to President Bush. In speeches over the years, Kerry repeatedly has denounced unilateral action.

[snip]

A more recent theme for the senator from Massachusetts has been the importance of listening carefully to military advice. It is a subject he touched on in the past but seems to have emphasized more in the current campaign as he discusses the stormy relationship the Bush administration has had with the Army, particularly with Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who was that service's chief of staff until last year.

[snip]

But the most significant factor in shaping Kerry's views on the use of force appears to be Vietnam -- and not just the lesson that the conflict was a mistake. Indeed, some of his conclusions about the war are surprising, such as his praise a decade ago for President Richard M. Nixon's 1972 "Christmas bombing," the most intense aerial campaign of the war.

Kerry's reading of that war's lessons also leads, unexpectedly, to a similarity with Bush: an inclination to persist once he has chosen a course of action. His bottom line on Vietnam is that the nation must stick to commitments once troops have been sent in. The lesson from that war, he told author Gil Dorland, is that "I won't put American soldiers in harm's way unless the United States is prepared to win."
politics
11,648 views 32 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
BS. Really? Don't forget that in 1997, a year before Clinton started the "Iraq Liberation Act". Kerry has called for possible uilateral military action against Saddam. He has openly said that in Congress as well as in interview.
Link

 Give me a reason why Iraq is more dangerous in 1997 than in 2001. The inspectors were not kicked out in 1997 and 9/11 has not occured
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Well, thank you. But more importantly, what I said is really true. I was not twisting facts or taking words out of context. When Kerry endorsed Clinton for uilateral act on 1996 as well as in 1998. He was among the minority. So, he wasn't just going along with someone. Kerry was leading the "uilateral" theory in those years. The only difference I see, is that Clinton is of his party so it is ok for Clinton to break away from UN and NATO in 1996 and 1998, but not ok for Bush in 2001/2.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thank you for your comments, Chemicalkinetics,

You may not have read the article closely enough: "Win as much allied support as possible before going to war".

Also:
"There's no question he's wandered around" on issues such as the use of force, but so have most senators, said a Republican colleague and friend who supports Bush but also admires Kerry. "I don't think he would hesitate to use force if U.S. interests were threatened," he added.

"He doesn't shy away from defending America's interests . . . but he believes it is important to get international support," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
The problem is that Kerry has never specifed what is "as much as possible". That is a typical poltical non-statment. That is the same type of statement as "Everyone should earn as much as possible", "Kids should learn math as much as possible" and "We should be tolerate to gay people as much as possible". Why are you asking me to read a "non-statement"? In 1992, the first Gulf War, a war in which he now supports. He voted against it back then. How come? He kept talking about building a grand coalition, like Kennedy and Reagan. In what war, Kennedy and Reagan was in with massive ally force? Technically, Kennedy was pretty much alone in the Cuban crisis, or am I wrong? So to be technical, the grand coalition Kerry mentioned makes no sense to me. Of course Kerry can wonder around some issue, that is part of being a senator. I understand that, and I don't doubt Kerry will use force when USA get attacked. I am saying that it is ridiculous for him to criticize Bush on something which Kerry has strongly supported. It is like watching the Russians complainning USA being too communist. Look, Kerry can complain, but the article you reference certainly does not reflect Kerry's action, and certainly I have no reason to believe he can do a better job than Bush because I don't even know what he will do. Would he really build a grand coalition as he said now, or would he gone more uilateral than Bush as he suggested in 1997. The point is how come Kerry support a uilateral action in 1997 and 1998, but not in 2001. Is Iraq that much more dangerous in 1997/8? I would argue Iraq is more dangerous in 2001, but that is another topic. He accused Bush didn't bring in enough allies in this war. At least Bush went to UN twice, what did Clinton do in 1997/8 that Kerry decided uilateral is ok. Did Clinton went to UN three times? Is that it? The answer is NO
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
Last time I checked Germany is helping us in Afghanistan and they are seriously considering sending personnel to Iraq, so who is left that we can get to help that will?

- Grim X
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
I rather have the Polish troop than the German. In fact, having Russian army might be better. You know if Russian get attacked, they may seriously kick some terriosts ass.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks for the comments, GX and CK,

Well, Kerry's argument is that if Bush had been less abrasive with his "you're either with us or against us" approach, it would have been easier to attract allies. So the fact that we're having trouble getting allies is due to that approach. I realize that's a disputed dispute assertion.

As I understand it, the Polish troops are signalling that they want out. Also, the German offer of possible assitance was premised on the US changing its approach, and was widely interpreted as indication that Germany would be more comfortable working with a President Kerry.

As I've indicated in other threads, I'm not arguing that foreign leader endorsements are important. After all, Putin has endorsed Bush, and apparently so has the Prime Minister of Japan.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Putin endorsement is really indirect. Why do I think that? Well, half of the news said he endorsed Bush, the other half of the news said Putin didn't endorse either one. So Putin gave a weak endorsement. By the way, blogic, I disagree with you on that "you are with us or against us" statement. If you look at what Kerry said in 1997/8, his words are more uilateral than Bush now. So the question is: which is the real Kerry?

Yes, the Polish army wants out. That is why I said I rather Polish stays than the German joins. Foerign leader endorsement means only one thing: what is their best interest. As simple as that, that is the same logic as if USA ever support a government, you bet it is not an anti-USA government. German will be more comfortable with Kerry because they believe... well, I won't go into that... Japan like Bush more simply because they think Bush can handle North Korea better. Japan's greatest foreign policy concern is N. Korea.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
"which is the real Kerry?"

Well, the original article is perfectly open that Kerry, like most senators, has views that have evolved over time. Of course, the same is true of Bush. In 2000, he favored a "humble" foreign policy built on stronger international alliances.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Yeah, I can understand how Bush changed his policy because in his mind the world has transformed into a more dangerous place after 9/11. National security suddenly surpass everythinh else. Because of that, foerign policy negotiations will be placed after national security. It is like the priorty changed if someone realized he has lung diesase. He may quits smoking.

What I don't understanding is what make Kerry thinks the 1997/8 Iraq is more dangerous than the after sept11 2002 Iraq? That just doesn't make any sense to me. In 2001, Iraq has no inspectors inside for years, where in 1997 there was inspectors on ground. You also think after Sep11 when Saddam openly praised the terrriosts, he seems more dangerous not less. Even if he didn't support bin Laden, you did think he may one day support another group. Afterall, Saddam is the only foreign leader openly praise the 9/11 action -- at least Saddam openly said 9/11 is a good thing. So what make Kerry thinks the 2001 Iraq requires grand coalition but it is ok to attack Iraq alone in 1997/8. From the UN standpoint, Iraq also broke more resolutions by the time in 2001 than in 1997 (of course).
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Many would say that 9/11 changed everything, and international alliances are far more important than they used to be. The War on Terrorism is more important than Saddam Hussein, and to have any hope of winning the WoT we will need a grand coalition. Unfortunately, Bush's approach to Iraq has made building the necessary coalition more difficult. I understand that you would probably assert that Iraq is part of the WoT, but obviously reasonable people can disagree on that.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
Ok, how is Kerry going to build the grand coalition. I am not getting that? The French and the new Spanish governments have already said they won't send any troops in Iraq, no matter who wins the election, and I don't blame them. Countires do what is best fit for their interests. If the French think the going into Iraq is bad for their interest, then it is bad no matter who win the US election. Kerry has insulted all the current coalition members by calling the the British Tony Blair in a coalition of bribed. He has sent his sister, Diana Kerry, to campaign against John Howard (Aus). They actually had a campaign center in Australia.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10797507%5E2703,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45794-2004Sep23.html

Kerry has called Allwai (Iraqi PM) a liar -- later he repharsed his words. You would think the Iraqi Councul is the last group of people we can afford to offend. If there is one country we need in stabilizing Iraq, it will be Iraq, and Kerry has managed to offend their PM, by calling him a liar. In Bush's worse days, he has yet to campaign against the French and German in their elections and call them liars. Here is my comment to you: you always talked about what Kerry's has said, which is very important, may I add. However, you never look at the actions taken by Kerry. For example, if you look at his 1997/8 stands, it is vastly different than the 2001. Now, he says he will build a coalition like Reagan and Kennedy. First, I am unsure what military coalitions Reagan and Kennedy has built. Reagan if anything offended the European with his strong stand against the USSR. Reagan was often refering having a cowboy attitude in those days and Kennedy was alone in the Cuban crisis. Did you recall any European countries sending troops to help Kennedy? What coalition is Kerry refering to? Or is he simply putting two popular president's names out there. To be correct, he should say Truman's coaltion (the whole NATO idea), but I guess Truman is not popular enough for him. Second, what reason he has for me to think he can build a larger coalition when he is pissing off the current one.
How do you justify Kerry building a larger coalition when he insulted the one we have at this moment. I am so sure that Tony Blair, John Howard (relected now), Allawi and others really like Kerry, ya know. Calling them names and campaign against them. In fact, if you think closely, Kerry campaigned against John Howard who is supporting US. Kerry was campaigning for the labor party, which actually would withdraw the Australian army from Iraqi. So Kerry is actually campaigning for what? He was campaigning to decrease the coalition force in Iraq. This really piss me off.

So here it is, Kerry has not proven to me that he can get the French and German on board, but he has proven to me that he can dissolve the coalition we have at this moment.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I indicated, I think Germany has already signalled they'd be more willing to work with a President Kerry. Regarding potential allies, various members of the Bush administration have made many pointed comments about "Old Europe," so I hardly think Bush is in a strong position there. Not that I think it should matter in the election, but it's no secret that Bush is not a popular leader in most of the world. I think it's very likely that more world leaders would prefer to work with Kerry than with Bush.

Of course, I have no way to prove that, and you have no way to prove that the reverse is true. I suggest that we agree to disagree.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't forget that in 1997, a year before Clinton started the "Iraq Liberation Act". Kerry has called for possible uilateral military action against Saddam.


Ok, how is Kerry going to build the grand coalition. I am not getting that?


I think that these both are valid points that we on the left can't/won't answer.
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
Speaking of Putin, my take was that he said Insurgents in Iraq are going to ramp up operations so that Bush loses the election because of Iraq.

That was according to his intelligence agencies, but as for Putin, he could care less who the U.S. picks.

Dance the dance of the dancing dancers.
- Grimlin Xing
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Look, I am not asking you to prove to me beyond the reaosnable of doubt. I am just saying if you know at how Bush offended the German and the French, and the way how Kerry is offending the British, Australian and Iraqi. Kerry is more offensive. Kerry campaigned against John Howard for god sake. He was campaigning for the Auastralian party which would have withdraw the troops (that was the labor party's promise). Kerry has called Allawi a liar and Blair being bribed. Has any of Bush action or commments matches that? You may say the Bush adminstration can be more engaging to the German and French. The only remote thing you can call Bush is non-reponsive to German and French, maybe. He was not actively against the German and French by building campaign headquarters in their countries and call them liars.

How can you be so double standards? So it is ok for Kerry to refer Allawi lying and send his sister to campaign against John Howard? Don't forget the Austrulian and the British are the most steadfast allies we have ever, and Iraqi is undenaible important in stabilizing Iraqi. I would make the comment which may be offensive to some but true. It is more important to have the Iraqi government, British and Australian on our side than those of German and French.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Blogic. I could respect these posts more if they weren't just cut'n'paste and links. Provide some commentary, yeah?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hi Myrrander,

I think I answered both your questions as well as I can, and I think my answers were both reasonable and admitted their internal limits. Question number one boils down to "Why did Kerry flip-flip?", and I said that the "9/11 changed everything" answer applies at least as logically to Kerry's views as Bush's. Both Bush and Kerry's views have evolved over time. Are you holding Kerry to a different standard than you hold Bush? Are you arguing that we should only have politicians than never change their views? And if you are, are there any and would they make very good presidents? Please read through the comments for more info.

Regarding the second question, that was also dealt with. Please read through the comments. In the end, we're talking about the future and most foreign leaders are not going to get invovled with this election, so everyone's guessing on this. That said, do I think it's likely that Kerry will be more oriented towards working with other countries. Also, given the fact that Bush is extremely unpopular in most democracies (according to polls), I think foreign leaders will be more likely to work with Kerry.

Can I prove that? Of course not. But I feel comfortable that given how Bush has handled the Iraq War, and Bush's tremendous unpopularity in most democracies, it would be easier and more likely for Kerry to build a larger alliance.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
My god. You seriously think Allawi was happy after hearing Kerry called him a liar, and that John Howard really simle when Kerry campaigned against him.... In that case, maybe Bush should have called the French and German liars and campaigned against them. That will make them happy according to your logic. There is no reason to believe Kerry can build a larger coalition. Forget that he has offended most currnet allies. He has repeatly now said this is the wrong war (Iraqi War). Who the hell is going to join a wrong war? If anything, he gives the current allies reason to leave. To be a leader in a coalition, one thing more important than being popular is to believe what you are doing is right. Reagan was vastly unpopular in European during his presidenacy, and you can look that up, but NATO coaltion did not fall apart under him. He is unpopular because he has this cowboy attitude of what I said is right and American opinion is bigger than yours, of course that is unpopular among European, but at the same time they sticked by him because he convinced them that the coalition against USSR is right. The allies stayed not because Reagan is popular but because the cause is just. Kerry in your description is oppose. He tried to be popular but tell other countries that the cause is wrong. Not once in US history has the leader build a grand coalition when he think the war/action is wrong. I gave you an example, of two unpopular president, Truman and Reagan. Truman build a coalition and Reagan although didn't really build anything he maintained it alright. On the opposite, you have Jimmary Carter who is a nice person, but lack the ability to lead. He can't be sure what he is doing is even right at times. If I am a country leader, I want the leader of a coalition be firm. The last thing I want is the leader leaves the war before I do. Popularity that is secondary, and you should know that.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, I meant your posts in general.

Bush's tremendous unpopularity in most democracies


what about this Republic?

I don't trust Allawi at all. Nor did I trust Chalabi. Nor do I trust Karzai.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
Myrrander, Bush is kinda of popular in US. His popularity is at least above 50%. Go read Gallup poll. Regarding Allawi, it is not simply about you trust him or not, the question is "Do you have to work with this guy?". I don't like the a lot of foreign leaders, but that doesn't mean the USA should start calling them liars.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
"There's no question he's wandered around" on issues such as the use of force, but so have most senators, said a Republican colleague and friend who supports Bush but also admires Kerry. "I don't think he would hesitate to use force if U.S. interests were threatened," he added."He doesn't shy away from defending America's interests . . . but he believes it is important to get international support," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.


I can't tell you how reassured I am.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hi Myrrander,

I wasn't talking about his domestic popularity, so I'm not sure why you brought it up -- I certainly never implied it wasn't important. I was talking about Kerry vs Bush's ability to put together an alliance. Do you disagree with me on this? Believe Bush is more likely to work with allies?

Also, as you know, I write commentary pieces periodically. I've always done a mix of link posts and commentary, and even link posts with commentary. I've also often put commentary in my follow up comments.

Finally, if you look through JoeUser, you'll see there are more (as in a greater number) of pro-Bush writers than there are pro-Kerry ones. I understand that you're torn between the candidates, and that you sometimes -- in your own words -- like to play Devil's Advocate; but I'm sorry you're now spending more time critiquing pro-Kerry arguments than pro-Bush ones. It's not as if JoeUser is dominated by liberals with no one willing to stand up and advocate conservative views. I appreciate your independence of thought, but JoeUser has few enough intelligent Kerry supporters taking part in the discussions, and I'm sure you could contribute more balance to the many lopsidedly pro-Bush conversation threads here.

As always, thank you for your comments.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hi CK,

I think I was fairly clear I was talking about Bush's popularity in other countries, not domestically. When we deal with other democracies, their leaders necessarily care about whether their constituents support alliances with America. In fact, European supporters of the Iraq War are now having political problems precisely because the war is so unpopular there.

So the question is, could Bush have handled it differently so that European leaders felt they would have more citizen support on the war, and on the occupation/rebuliding of Iraq? I think so. As I've indicated in other posts, Bush was warned that the occupation would be much more difficult than for what he planned. I think that if the occupation had gone better, it would be easier to attract allies; and I think Bush bears a lot of responsibility for weakness is the occupation planning.

You can disagree with me on those assertions, but once again, I think it's getting beyond the range of this discussion to move into a larger discussion of (1) could Bush have handled the occupation better and (2) has that occupation affected the willingness of potential allies to contribute troops and resources.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hi GX,

Putin said this:
I consider that the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush ... International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term, if they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power.
Coming from a guy who's made the War on Terrorism central to his rhetoric, that's an endorsement. He did go on to say he would respect the choice of the American people, and that he didn't want to spoil relations with either candidate.