Glenn Reynolds has a brilliant evisceration of Kerry’s foreign policy proposals at MSNBC that lays bare the contradictions and the fallacies around Kerry’s foreign policy. Kerry’s rhetoric about the “global test” and his insults to our allies in Iraq contradict his rhetoric about respecting our allies.
I think the central thrust of Kerry’s foreign policy is simply the wrong concept to begin with. The American people don’t give a good goddamn about France or getting along with our erstwhile “allies.” France is about as popular as foot fungus in this country right now, and for good reason. Given that the UN consists of a bunch of arrogant bureaucrats who were taking money from Saddam Hussein under the table while lecturing the world on international morality, a strategy that says that America should bend over backwards to apply lips to derriere just doesn’t have much appeal. Kerry’s rhetoric about hunting down and killing terrorists is more effective, but so few people buy it and Kerry’s own record contradicts it, making it largely a moot point.
If one were to actually think logically about Kerry’s foreign policy proposals, they simply don’t make sense. This war is wrong and a disaster, but Kerry will somehow talk other nations into throwing themselves into it just because. Bush’s plan is overtly optimistic, but Kerry can magically train thousands of Iraqi troops post haste and double the number of US Special Force. (Ignoring the concept that training troops takes time and the reason our Special Forces are the best in the world is because we wash out 80% of those who apply.) According to Kerry unilateralism is bad in Iraq, but necessary in North Korea. Bush was wrong for not giving troops body armor when Kerry and Edwards voted against it themselves. We should use preemption, but we have to pass a “global test” first – which begs the question, what if we fail that global test?
Clearly Kerry’s foreign policy has more holes than Swiss cheese. Fortunately, his arguments don’t appear to be pursuading too many people. Bush’s numbers on homeland security and terrorism as well as Iraq remain high. All the sophistry in the world cannot disguise the fact that the intellectual basis for such policies is as vacous as Britney Spears.
France is only unpopular in “one-dimensional America”, which is a standard GOP alliance of uneducated, bloodthirsty savages who don’t have the slightest hint of what’s at stake by giving the rest of the civilized world the finger…and educated but naive neocons who have watched a few too many episodes of “The A-Team” and suffer many of the same delusions of American grandeur, so long as their smooth gentle hands never hold a rifle of course.
Those of us who aren’t one-dimensional cookie cutters can see that France is a piece in a puzzle that needs to be in place if we plan to pursue a widespread policy of waging war on those we think may attack us at some point in the future. America has neither the military force or the financial capacity to fund the foreign policy that “one-dimensional America” wants, and for that matter is already engaged in. If you want to fool yourself into believing existing alliances that account for 10 percent of the total troop presence will be sufficient, I guess that’s your decision. But when you get a “your friends and neighbors have selected you” notice in the mail after the election, we’ll see if you still believe we’re right to thumb our nose at the French rather than trying to work with them.
And if you believe that France has any interest in helping us no matter how much we beg you’re being hopelessly naive. Hell, even Kerry himself has admitted as much.
“Given that the UN consists of a bunch of arrogant bureaucrats who were taking money from Saddam Hussein under the table while lecturing the world on international morality, a strategy that says that America should bend over backwards to apply lips to derriere just doesn’t have much appeal.
Why do I suppose that if I were to charge that corporate America is controlled by a bunch of Ken Lays, Dennis Kozlowskis and Al Dunlaps, you’d put me down as unfairly tarring the many for the sins of a corrupt few?
Your hyperbole about Kerry’s foreign policy was no doubt satisfying to write, but it bears as much resemblance to what the man has in mind as a Max Ernst painting bears to a Norman Rockwell cover for the Saturday Evening Post.
Take the man’s words, distort them, exaggerate them to a ridiculous extreme, then ridicule him for coming up with such nonsense. This is as common in America today as the discarded drink can by the highway. It’s cheap-shot discourse that does no one any good.
FWIW, we need for the U.N. to be worthy of its charter, along with most of the rest of the world’s nations. It’s becoming clear reform is needed. Scorn and derision won’t bring that about. Working intelligently with other responsible members to improve things just might.