Posted on 11/01/2004 2:55:57 AM PST by rhema
One of the most riveting lines of John Kerry's 1971 testimony before the Senate was a question: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
Kerry was talking about Vietnam but he has described the war in Iraq in similar terms, as a "mistake" or a "colossal error." Nevertheless, he expects voters to believe that if elected, he will persevere rather than cut and run.
Put another way, voters are being asked to elect a candidate who's willing to order men and women to die in a war he believes is a mistake.
Kerry's contradictory performance on Iraq shows why his election would instantly drain energy from the war on terror.
When it comes to national security, credibility is hard-won. It is built by convincing your adversaries they will pay a certain price should they attempt to do you harm.
U.S. credibility was squandered in the 1990s — that innocent era before Sept. 11, when the terrorist threat was viewed as a problem for diplomacy, intelligence and law enforcement.
Our commercial buildings, barracks, ships and embassies were bombed in a series of increasingly brazen attacks. We responded mainly with pinprick missile strikes.
In the case of Somalia, where 18 soldiers died in a firefight and American bodies were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, we simply withdrew. That planted the most dangerous seed of all in the mind of Osama bin Laden.
"We believe America is much weaker than Russia," bin Laden said in an al-Qaida recruiting video, "and our brothers who fought in Somalia told us they were astonished to observe how weak, impotent and cowardly the American soldier is."
The attack on Afghanistan, followed by President Bush's invasion of Iraq despite so much foreign opposition, has done a great deal to turn the tide where it matters most — in the mind of the enemy.
Those who characterize Bush as a reckless cowboy seem blind to the fact that when you're in a war, you want the other side to believe you're reckless and unpredictable and maybe even half-crazy. If the bad guys think the American president is reckless — folks, that's a good thing.
The idea that Kerry is capable of filling that role is laughable. If he can't even come up with a coherent campaign position on the biggest issue in the election, how can he come up with coherent policy on national security? He even voted against using force against Saddam Hussein after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.
If Kerry is elected, he'll be tested in ways that Bush would never be, simply because the toughest tests of Bush's willingness to use power are already behind him.
Kerry calls Iraq a "diversion," but success is of strategic importance. It is essential that a model be planted in the Middle East — an alternative that shouts to every Arab: Don't listen to those who claim you should have no voice in how you are governed.
The availability of an alternative is essential to any process of change. The rapid fall of the Soviet Union occurred in part because an alternative was available in the form of Boris Yeltsin, the elected president of Russia. By contrast, communism lives on in China, at least outwardly, in large part because no similar alternative has appeared there. An alternative to the current pattern of tyranny and oppression needs to take shape in the Middle East.
In 1975, during a break in negotiations with the North Vietnamese, a U.S. military officer conversed briefly with one of his North Vietnamese counterparts.
"You know," said the late Col. Harry Summers, "you never defeated us on the battlefield."
The Vietnamese paused for a moment.
"That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."
No one who believes a given course of action is a mistake can be counted on to press it vigorously — and ensure that in Iraq, American military superiority leads to victory rather than defeat.
Bush believes victory is not merely possible but imperative. Kerry clearly does not, and does not deserve to be elected president.
Ping
We were winning Viet Nam before we lost it.
Fits Kerry to a tee.
Kerry, just throws out the pro-war one-liners to try and keep those Dems in the fold, that only vote Democrat, because that's what pop and grandpop always did.
Not all Dems are of the flag burning variety, and Kerry has to give them just enough pro-america language, so that they will hold their noses and vote with the anti-american base of their party.
There is no way that Kerry will have the guts to stick it out on the War On Terror. If Kerry is elected, we will show weakness. If we show weakness, our soldiers will be killed in large numbers, and we will withdraw. The Donks will finally get their "Thousand Mogadishus". If Kerry is elected, our ignominious defeat is inevitable.
Unfortunately, there seems to be 46% of the US population that thinks this is a good thing...
Why we're in Iraq.
There is a war on terror.
If everybody thinks there's a mess in Iraq now, just let America elect that elitest prick Thurston Howell IV.
It should have NEVER gotten this close!
He'd drain the energy from just about anything or anybody. Can you imagine how much TV and radio time he'd take up? Lordy, he'd want a camera and a mike on him 24/7. Eesh. I feel tired just thinking about it...zz...zzz.
I'll take it further - if Kerry is elected, there IS no war on terror.
I will concede that the Democrat media's suppression of 9/11 images was successful, and demand that our troops return home immediately.
The Democrats can then deal with "terrorism law enforcement issues" in the streets of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago - but without my help or sympathy.
Don't bother me or mine for ANYTHING relating to the "war" that you would have "proved" to be "phony".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.