Look at it this way. In office, Kerry would likely run a foreign policy like Clintons. A preference for multilateralism, a tendency toward navel-gazing ("why do they hate us?") and a preference for the law enforcement approach, with the occasional retaliatory strike, over robust military action. Remember, Clinton led a coalition of the willing into action over Kosovo when he realized UN sanction was not forthcoming. Clinton also maintained the no-fly zones over Iraq, as well as related punitive actions like Desert Fox. He sent troops to Bosnia and beefed up Bush's deployment to Somalia. He was prepared for unilateral military action in Haiti, and the troops were actually on the go when a diplomatic deal was brokered. Clinton also was rather robust in increasing the powers of domestic law enforcement agencies. Remember Ruby Ridge, Waco and Elian Gonzalez.
But in the end, the fundamental characteristic of Clinton's defense and terrorism policies was that it was reactive. We did not take the war to the enemy. There was no perception of there being a war.
Kerry's campaign rhetoric and his convention speech enunciated a desire to return to that model. When asked if he would be a war president, he emphasizes being an education president, a jobs president, etc. The war, to the extent it is recognized, is just one more issue up there with gay marriage and prescription drugs. He speaks of fighting terrorism more from the law enforcement perspective. When he talks tough, it is to say that if the terrorists strike us, we will strike back hard - in other words, once again the initiative is ceded to them, and we only react. The campaign thinks they have a winner in talking about funding first responders - police, fire and EMT - calling them the first line of defense. But again, they are primarily there in reaction to an attack. As journalist and blogger Bill Hobbs
put it:
Quote:
|
For John Kerry, our "first responders" in the War on Terror are the people who respond to an attack with firehoses, bulldozers and cadaver dogs. For President George Bush, our "first responders" are the 101st Airborne, the Third Infantry Division, the Navy and the Air Force. They get no mention in Kerry's self-described "Agenda to Support Front Lines in America's War on Terror," which contains not a single single word about offense.
|
The other factor to consider is that, unlike both Clinton and Bush, Kerry is not a leader. For all Clinton's other failings, he knew how to lead (how to motivate, build consensus, compromise, and make decisions). Kerry has virtually no executive or leadership experience and has demonstrated repeatedly his indecisiveness and poor judgment. His supporters tout his intellect and ability to see the complexities in various issues, but a leader must not merely be able to see all sides of an issue - he must take a stand on the issue. Kerry has had an enjoyable career in the Senate because that is a deliberative body, not an executive institution, and even in that context he has rarely taken a leadership role on any issue (he has long been described as a permanent back-bencher).