Kerry, after all, has been a frequent opponent of U.S. military action. He launched his political career as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. No sooner had he arrived in the Senate than he made himself a principal opponent of military aid to America's allies in Central America. And when the Senate debated the use of force against Iraq, Kerry was volubly opposed. He declared: "In my heart and in my gut and in my mind I do not believe in sending people to war unless it is imperative."
Moreover, whereas Kerry now says that the threat of military action will strengthen our diplomatic hand with Haiti, he rejected the very same argument with respect to Iraq.
Since I believe that it would be unwise for the U.S. to invade Haiti--where, to repeat, neither American lives nor American security interests are at risk, and where, in addition, the deposed, democratically elected president is no democrat himself--the emptiness of Kerry's advocacy is perhaps to be welcomed. But this is not the case with the general position he takes against unilateral action by the U.S.
For a superpower, the essence of foreign policy is not to act only in the face of "clear and present dangers," but to prevent such dangers from materializing by timely assertions of power and extensions of aid to others under threat. To forfeit the right to do these things unilaterally--to subsume our judgment to that of international civil servants like Boutros Boutros Ghali--would be an abdication of responsibility for which we and the world will pay dearly (as is likely to happen in the case of Bosnia). But this is a lesson of our success in the cold war that old-time doves like Kerry--most of whom recently voted against unilaterally lifting the arms embargo to Bosnia--still seem unwilling to learn.