In 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson believed that a stalemate with Communist China and the Soviet Bloc was unavoidable and cautioned American patience in dealing with evil. The Truman strategy of the time was to support allies in confronting Communist threats, but not to commit American troops to the effort. Accordingly, in January 1950, Dean Acheson described the defense perimeter that the United States intended to erect in the Far East, leaving out South Korea. The Soviets and the North Koreans would view this speech, along with prior policy statements from Truman and Acheson, as disinterest in defending South Korea from potential communist attack. The rest, as we know, is history.
The onset of the Korean War elucidates one of the most striking points made by the administration -- while John Kerry's penchant for shifting in the wind may be useful for a career politician, such "flip-flopping" is dangerous when used to shape foreign policy. Allies and enemies must know where America stands on terror and how we intend to respond to terrorist and other international threats.
George Bush's "plain speak" may draw criticism, but its very simplicity is its greatest virtue. Bush's policies are seldom unclear, and are devoid of innuendo. Foreign leaders will always know where Bush stands -- threats will be backed up with action. When the President unseated Saddam Hussein, he showed the world that America will not tolerate rogue regimes. The result? Qadhafi, noting the Bush policy of preemption, agreed to dismantle Libya's longtime nuclear program. If developed, such weapons could have been used by Libya against U.S. interests or, more likely, would have ended up in the hands of terrorists by sale or theft. This is all because Bush is a man of action and not simply words.
Some will argue John Kerry's positions are just as forceful as Bush's, except with greater thought for our allies. Aside from the fact that our alliances are still clearly functioning, this is clearly not true. Kerry has already staked out a position whereby he proposes to utilize mostly pin-point raids using special, rather than conventional, forces. It wasn't the Green Berets or European diplomacy that got Hans Blix through the door in Iraq -- it was more than 100,000 American troops ready to force his hand. We need a leader who is unafraid to use all the tools in his arsenal. George Bush is that man.
Contrasting with the Bush administration, Kerry has offered his own direction for securing the safety of America. Kerry has offered to wage a more "sensitive war" on terror. Was Afghanistan sensitive to America's need's when it refused to turn over bin Laden despite his role in several international bombings? Was Europe sensitive to our needs when it continued insisting on diplomacy even when its own intelligence community agreed that Saddam was armed and dangerous? The answers are "no" and "no." If America wants to win the war on terror, we cannot be concerned with the needs of those who killed 3,000 innocents.
In closing, the policies of Bush and Kerry on terror as articulated during their conventions are night and day. America understands this divide: 57 percent trust Bush to handle the war on terror while only 36 percent trust Kerry. The choice is clear. It appears obvious that in a world in which a single act of terror can wipe out Wall Street in minutes, economic policy will always be inferior to security concerns. In a world in which no welfare project or retirement plan will bring back the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers who could be killed in seconds in a future attack, domestic programs appear of secondary importance. If and when Americans realize these realities, not even a butterfly ballot will be able to obscure their view of the correct choice. On a single issue alone, George Bush deserves four more years.
