Was perusing Kerry’s nomination speech, looking at the little tidbits, and came across this:
“Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.”
Sounds good, does it not? Makes Kerry sounds strong, and resolute. And, I absolutely agree 100%. We should respond with swiftly and certainly.
But what does it really mean? Clinton responded with cruise missile attacks. The USA responded by generally treating terrorists as a law enforcement problem for most of the 1990’s. Perhaps, and I would speculate that surely, we had Special Ops forces performing actions as well. But not enough to nip terrorism in the bud.
For Kerry, there are 2 questions. First, when would it be required? Would he have launched a full scale military action swiftly against the sovereign Nation-State of Afghanistan, as President Bush did? Remember, Afghanistan never attacked us! (But, that is a continued thought for another day.) Al Queda attacked us. Al Queda is located all around the world. Most of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. The cells had links to Germany. The leadership of Al Queda was in Afghanistan. We not only launched a large scale attack against AL Queda, we took out the government of Afghanistan, the Taliban. Would Kerry do that? Or would he waffle about invading a sovereign nation, even with a secretive spec ops group?
Second, and, perhaps more importantly, why would he wait to retaliate for any attack? Certainly if one occurs, go for it. But, we need to continue the Policy of Preemption. Get them before they get us. There are times where diplomacy are in order, such as with Iran (at least for the moment), times where Special Ops units are needed, and times where large scale military force is necessary.
Al Queda needs support to operate. They operate out of many countries. We need to pressure those countries, and, if necessary, we need to use military force against them before Al Queda, or any other terrorist organization, can harm US interests.
Throughout his almost 20 years in the Senate, and before, Kerry has shown an aversion to swift action, and towards “staying the course.” Being flexible is fine, and smart: changing one’s lookout completely at the drop of a hat is not. It is dangerous when national security is the issue.
