If there is one thing in the chaotic post-Sept. 11 world that has not been worth questioning, it has been President George W. Bush’s unwavering resolve in defending our nation against terrorist threats. John Kerry’s complete lack of resolve would render him ineffective if presented with the same challenges.
Bush has shown sincere compassion for terrorism’s victims and firm prosecution of terrorism’s perpetrators. Despite changes in the political climate, Bush’s resolve remains steady three years after the attacks. It has been this consistent display of strength under pressure, specifically in relation to his policies on terrorism and in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has characterized the administration’s successes.
John Kerry, on the other hand, can hardly commit to a statement, let alone a consistent long-term policy. With “flip-flop” substituted for fortitude and negative campaigns in place of proposed alternatives, Kerry’s stance on Iraq and terrorism exemplifies his indecisive nature and inability to commit to a single strategy.
Taking a closer look at his policies, Bush’s actions to combat terrorism deserve praise. After the attacks of Sept. 11, the Bush Administration quickly took steps to prevent future attacks by creating the Department of Homeland Security, reorganizing the nation’s intelligence services and, most importantly, aggressively hunting down terrorists at home and abroad through diplomatic and military means.
After a successful regime change in Afghanistan, Bush secured key alliances to squeeze al Qaeda from their other hiding places around the world, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the third highest ranking member of the group has been captured. Despite Bush’s collaborative approach to counterterrorism, Kerry still faults Bush for allegedly acting unilaterally. In view of Bush’s above accomplishments, Kerry’s criticism falls flat.
The Bush Administration also concluded that destroying al Qaeda cells would not suffice to completely win the war on terror. In March 2003, Bush opened the second front on the war on terror by quickly toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. After liberating the Iraqi people, Bush has begun the implementation of a five-step plan toward eventual stability and independent democracy in Iraq. His five-step plan includes: 1. Transferring power to a sovereign Iraqi government; 2. Aiding in establishing security; 3. Rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure; 4. Encouraging international support; and 5. Moving toward a national election. Bush understands that peace and stability in Iraq cannot be achieved overnight. With this plan, Bush has proven his commitment to staying the course in Iraq.
Kerry, on the other hand, has yet to commit to any single policy for Iraq. In 2002, he voted for authorizing military force against Iraq. Later, Kerry told Tim Russert that the Bush administration should further fund the effort; only to vote against the supplemental 87 billion dollars for troops despite previously saying such a vote would be “irresponsible.” Although he declared himself an “anti-war candidate,” Kerry said that he still would have authorized force in Iraq knowing what he knows today, no WMD and all. Changing his mind again, Kerry said Sept. 6, 2004, that the mission in Iraq was “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
In addition to his waffling, Kerry has yet to differentiate his proposed Iraqi policy from Bush’s, only making the vague claim that he would recruit more allies to help in the reconstruction. Upon close inspection, there’s little evidence Kerry would be any more successful than Bush in recruiting allies.
For example, France is not opposed to Bush’s policy in Iraq but instead to America’s historical policy in Iraq. France’s opposition to a U.S. invasion of Iraq goes back to the 1990s. The French only abandoned the U.S. and the U.K. after Clinton bombed possible WMD factories in 1998 without a U.N. resolution. Also, Kerry has not demonstrated an ability to diplomatically recruit allies to our cause in Iraq. Instead, his condescending attitude towards the “Coalition of the Willing” can only hurt our efforts in rebuilding Iraq.
Terrorism is not a problem that Bush created or requested; it was one he inherited. It is a problem he has dedicated the resources of his presidency to defeating. Bush has stayed the course. John Kerry can’t even pick a course.
Robert Samuel is the Features Editor of The Chronicle.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.