Two Visions

The Kerry campaign has tried to focus attention on the military records of the two candidates, but the real issue before the voters is the candidates' strikingly different visions of America's role in the world.

Watching President Bush in action over the past 3 1/2 years has left little doubt as to his vision for this country. He sees America in Biblical terms. The city on the hill: a beacon in the darkness, refuge and rescuer of the weak and downtrodden, a nation that does not shrink from being a scourge for the wicked if needed. He believes in Good and Evil, and very much wants America to be Good.

Kerry's vision, on the other hand, is a little cloudier. His speeches paint a rosy picture: uncompromising on national defense, yet willing to cooperate with other nations. In his speeches, it comes across quite clearly that he believes America is on the wrong course - that our foreign policy is arrogant and unprincipled. It is important to understand John Kerry's world view; because if elected, he would take us in a radically different direction than the one we are currently facing.

Much has been made of Kerry's flip-flops on the issues, and his voting record supports this criticism. However, Kerry's core philosophy appears to have remained remarkably consistent over the years, however he may have voted. One may argue that he has not lived up to his beliefs, but those beliefs do not appear to have changed much over the years.

His opposition to the Vietnam War actually predates his military service. According to an article in the Harvard Crimson Online,

At Yale, Kerry was chairman of the Political Union and later, as Commencement speaker, urged the United States to withdraw from Vietnam and to scale down foreign military operations. And this was way back in 1966. When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy.

A Boston Globe article goes into more depth about Kerry's motivation on joining the Navy:

Kerry initially thought about enlisting as a pilot. But his father, Richard Kerry - a test pilot who served in the Army Air Corps - warned him that if he flew in combat, he might lose his love of flying. So Kerry, who sought in so many ways to emulate John Fitzgerald Kennedy, took to the water, just as his idol served on a World War II patrol boat, the 109.

Kerry served two tours. For a relatively uneventful six months, from December 1967 to June 1968, he served in the electrical department aboard the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that supported aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin and was far removed from combat.

"I didn't have any real feel for what the heck was going on [in the war]," Kerry has recalled... Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous.

Kerry was to serve only four months in combat, earning 3 Purple Hearts and a Silver Star for bravery in combat. He was wounded three times, the most severe wound requiring only two days light duty.

Believing he had done enough, Kerry then asked to see Commodore Charles F. Horne, the commander of his coastal squadron. He applied for an early transfer back to DC and an appointment as an aide, under regulation 1300.39, which states that any such reassignment "will be determined after consideration of [the candidate's] physical classification for duty and on an individual basis." As Kerry's wounds were superficial, the decision would appear to have been made on an individual basis.

All of this is past history, and would not be relevant today except for one thing: John Kerry's charge that George Bush pulled strings to get into the National Guard in order to avoid the draft and eventual combat duty in Vietnam. This is ironic, since by Kerry's own admission, he "didn't really want to get involved in the war" and petitioned the draft board to let him study abroad in Paris, then joined the Navy when that permission was refused. To further compound the irony, Col. William Campenni, who served with then Lt. Bush in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard, gives the lie to the charge that the National Guard was a safe haven for draft dodgers:

In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today.

A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.

Kerry's war opposition continued after he returned home and accused his fellow soldiers of daily acts of murder, rape, and brutality during the Winter Soldier Investigation and his subsequent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This behavior does not seem consistent with his claim to support America's veterans, but it does seem somewhat more consistent with his stated views on the limited use of US troops abroad.

In the Harvard Crimson article cited earlier,

Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Yet in his recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry said, "As President, I will not cede our security to any nation or institution – and adversaries will have no doubt of my resolve to use force if necessary – but I will always understand that even the only superpower on earth cannot succeed without co-operation and compromise with our friends and allies." The almost 40 nations who have contributed troops and money in the coalition to overthrow Saddam Hussein must be puzzled to discover that Senator Kerry believes the US is acting alone, without "friends and allies".

Which Kerry are we to believe? How can he protect US security if he refuses to dispatch US troops except under UN auspices? Why does he refuse to recognize nations such as Great Britain, probably our greatest friend and ally over our 200-year history, while lamenting our "miserable failure" to secure the approval of nations such as France? France withdrew long ago from the military part of NATO and has consistently and vehemently opposed the United States both in the United Nations and in NATO. Her opposition predated George Bush's presidency and is likely to outlast it.

Kerry has blasted the administration on intelligence failures and has demanded that someone be held accountable. He might consult a mirror. In 1970, Kerry wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care." One might argue that these were the words of a young man, but his recent actions on the Senate floor indicate that his sentiments are unchanged.

In a speech at the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman laid out how Mr. Kerry's own voting record has compromised U.S. security. "Even after the first World Trade Center bombing, Senator Kerry voted to gut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001. In 1996, he voted to slash defense spending by $6.5 billion. Both bills were so reckless that neither had any co-sponsors willing to endorse his plans." His voting record on defense spending has been similarly unimpressive - Kerry has run on a platform of cutting defense spending and military pay and transferring funds to social programs. Although his presidential campaign claims that he is a solid supporter of veterans, his record says otherwise.

Kerry has a long history of playing both ends against the middle. He opposed the Vietnam war yet accuses Bush of avoiding combat. Then it turns out he himself requested a draft deferment but was unable to obtain one, and so joined the Navy. He served honorably, but obtained an early release, then returned home and accused his fellow GI's of war crimes during highly publicized Congressional hearings. He claims to oppose special interests, but has accepted more money from special interests than any other candidate. He claims to support the military, but has been a vocal opponent of defense spending throughout his 18 years in the Senate. He has harshly criticized recent intelligence failures, but turns out to have authored bills proposing to decimate funding for our intelligence community.

Now a strange letter has shown up in the Tehran Times. It purports to be an email from Kerry, promising to repair the damage wrought by an out-of-control US foreign policy. According to the letter, "Disappointment with current US leadership is widespread, extending not just to the corridors of power and politics, but to the man and woman on the street as well." Kerry has not denied the authenticity of the letter.

It is stunning that a candidate for the Presidency of the United States would attempt to undermine US foreign policy for partisan advantage during a time when we are at war and Al-Qaeda forces are loose within an unstable Iran. When one considers his harsh criticism vis-a-vis intelligence failures, coupled with his open determination to gut the intelligence community (which, one might well argue, is a contributing factor in any failures), his flip-flops on the Iraq war; first voting to authorize the use of force, then claiming he was deceived and voting against the reconstruction package, it seems clear that Senator Kerry's foreign policy vision is not one that is sane, consistent, or well thought-out.

His personal philosophy seems unchanged through the years - a weak national defense, reliance on international consensus and partnership, pared-down intelligence services, US troops committed ONLY under UN authority in most instances.

Ask yourself if this is what America needs in the post-9/11 world?

Ask yourself if this is consistent with his campaign speeches? I believe the answer to both questions is, no.

- posted by Cassandra