The Kerry Doctrine

[Annie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29204-2004Jul30.html

The Kerry Doctrine

By Robert Kagan

Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B07

Someday, when the passions of this election have subsided, historians and analysts of American foreign policy may fasten on a remarkable passage in John Kerry's nomination speech. "As president," Kerry declared, "I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation." The statement received thunderous applause at the convention and, no doubt, the nodding approval of many Americans of all political leanings who watched on television.

Only American diplomatic historians may have contemplated suicide as they reflected on their failure to have the smallest influence on Americans' understanding of their own nation's history. And perhaps foreign audiences tuning in may have paused in their exultation over a possible Kerry victory in November to reflect with wonder on the incurable self-righteousness and nationalist innocence the Democratic candidate displayed. Who but an American politician, they might ask, could look back across the past 200 years and insist that the United States had never gone to war except when it "had to"?

[...]

Maybe Kerry's real act of cynicism was his vote for the Iraq war in the fall of 2002. With that vote, he ignored everything he believed he had learned from his Vietnam experience. In retrospect, he may feel that he sold his soul to make himself electable. In the months since the war, Kerry has had to pretend he did the right thing, not only because a politician dare not admit error but because his political advisers believe that in a post-Sept. 11 world most of the electorate does not want an "antiwar" president. Throughout the long months of the campaign, Kerry disciplined himself to sound like a hawk. But in his heart, based on all he learned during the formative years of his life, Kerry is not a hawk. At the Democratic National Convention, John Edwards followed the script. Kerry followed his heart.

The ironies abound. Three decades ago, Kerry came out in opposition to the war he had fought in Vietnam. Today, Kerry extols that service so that he may safely, patriotically distance himself from the war in Iraq that he had supported.

If Kerry has revealed himself in an unusual moment of honesty, it's time everyone took an equally honest look at where he would lead the country if elected. Kerry's "doctrine of necessity," if seriously intended, would entail a pacifism and an isolationism more thorough than any attempted by a U.S. government since the 1930s. It would rule out all wars fought for humanitarian ends, all interventions to prevent genocide, to defend democracy or even, as in the case of the Persian Gulf War, to uphold international law against aggression. For those are all wars of choice.

For someone who professes to seek better relations with the rest of the world, Kerry's doctrine of necessity would base American foreign policy on narrow, selfish interests far more than the alleged "unilateralism" of the Bush administration. Some Europeans have been quietly worrying that what they consider Bush's overambitious foreign policy will be followed in the United States by an isolationist backlash. After hearing Kerry's speech, they may worry a bit more.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.

 

[Hobbit]

Doesn't Kerry know that the U.S. learned its lesson from WWI & II? We tried playing isolationist and stayed out of both of those until we were forced to take action. If we had taken action when we first had the chance, it wouldn't have been as hard for us to win. That's why we went to Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and now Iraq.

 

[tpahl]

Doesn't Kerry know that the U.S. learned its lesson from WWI & II? We tried playing isolationist and stayed out of both of those until we were forced to take action. If we had taken action when we first had the chance, it wouldn't have been as hard for us to win. That's why we went to Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and now Iraq.

Likewise we have entered veitnam, korea, Somalia, yugoslavia (a couple times) grenada, Haiti (a couple times), lebanon, Iraq (a couple times), afghanistan, nicaraugua, etc... all with an interventionist policy. Yet bush continues on with an interventionist policy. Has he not learned his lesson?

We also have decades of experience that wars against things such as drugs, and poverty. It only makes the problem worse. it leaves the ogvernment with only 2 options, continuing the failed choice, or admitting it was wrong to begin with. the result has been more and more moeny thrown at the problems each year with worse and worse results. Did bush learn the lesson? no. He created a war on terrorism rather than just seek to punish the indiviuals responsible for 9/11.

 

[Avatar4321]

Likewise we have entered veitnam, korea, Somalia, yugoslavia (a couple times) grenada, Haiti (a couple times), lebanon, Iraq (a couple times), afghanistan, nicaraugua, etc... all with an interventionist policy. Yet bush continues on with an interventionist policy. Has he not learned his lesson?

We also have decades of experience that wars against things such as drugs, and poverty. It only makes the problem worse. it leaves the ogvernment with only 2 options, continuing the failed choice, or admitting it was wrong to begin with. the result has been more and more moeny thrown at the problems each year with worse and worse results. Did bush learn the lesson? no. He created a war on terrorism rather than just seek to punish the indiviuals responsible for 9/11.

What? the lesson that if we do take care of problems and put our whole effort to fixing those problems we will be better off than if we let some hitler like authoritarian figure get very strong before we fix the problem?

 

[Hobbit]

Likewise we have entered veitnam, korea, Somalia, yugoslavia (a couple times) grenada, Haiti (a couple times), lebanon, Iraq (a couple times), afghanistan, nicaraugua, etc... all with an interventionist policy. Yet bush continues on with an interventionist policy. Has he not learned his lesson?

As I recall, most of those worked out pretty well, especially Korea and Iraq (more the second time than the first). If push came to shove, I'd rather have another Vietnam than another WWII

We also have decades of experience that wars against things such as drugs, and poverty. It only makes the problem worse. it leaves the ogvernment with only 2 options, continuing the failed choice, or admitting it was wrong to begin with. the result has been more and more moeny thrown at the problems each year with worse and worse results. Did bush learn the lesson? no. He created a war on terrorism rather than just seek to punish the indiviuals responsible for 9/11.

We tried just catching a prosecuting, but it didn't work. Judicial rules prevented us from holding known terrorists for very long unless they were brought to trial, where further judicial rules would have much of the evidence thrown out. Oh, and that's assuming they don't take asylum in some terrorist supportive state like Iraq or Afghanistan. We declared war on them, which gives us the power to go find them wherever they are and hold them as long as we want when we catch them.

Now, while the war on poverty and the war on drugs may be flops, the word 'war' is used to make a political impact. The War on Terror is actually a war, fought by soldiers with weapons and in the defense of our country and its citizens.

 

[tpahl]

Now, while the war on poverty and the war on drugs may be flops, the word 'war' is used to make a political impact. The War on Terror is actually a war, fought by soldiers with weapons and in the defense of our country and its citizens.

The war on terror is very similar to the war on drugs. In the war on drugs the more drugs you stop from entering the country the more profit there is to smuggle drugs into the country. With the war on terror, the more troops you send to capture the terrorists, the more enemies we will make which translates into more terrorists.

Neither war can be won by attacking it the way the Bush Administation is going about it. The war on drugs can be won by ending drug prohibition. The war on terror can be won by ending the occupation of over 100+ countries.

Travis

 

[Moi]

The war on terror is very similar to the war on drugs. In the war on drugs the more drugs you stop from entering the country the more profit there is to smuggle drugs into the country. With the war on terror, the more troops you send to capture the terrorists, the more enemies we will make which translates into more terrorists.

Neither war can be won by attacking it the way the Bush Administation is going about it. The war on drugs can be won by ending drug prohibition. The war on terror can be won by ending the occupation of over 100+ countries.

Travis

The war on drugs can be won by people refusing to take illegal drugs. The war on terror can be won by terrorists refusing to be violent and letting americans live their lives as we were doing well before they attacked my city.

Ball's in their court!

 

[Hobbit]

The war on terror is very similar to the war on drugs. In the war on drugs the more drugs you stop from entering the country the more profit there is to smuggle drugs into the country. With the war on terror, the more troops you send to capture the terrorists, the more enemies we will make which translates into more terrorists.

Neither war can be won by attacking it the way the Bush Administation is going about it. The war on drugs can be won by ending drug prohibition. The war on terror can be won by ending the occupation of over 100+ countries.

Travis

That's a fairy tale fed to you by cynicists and far leftists like George Carlin and Ted Kennedy (why is he still in office?). You can't take away drug prohibitions. The only reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is because they have the power of momentum and alcohol only kills people who abuse it (that and we tried prohibition and it didn't work). Marijuana is as bad as tobacco, though not as addictive. Cocaine and its derivatives can cause people to become violent, and with the strength boost it gives, that's very dangerous. Not only that, but Cocaine, when snorted, has been known to burn holes in people's noses and other respiratory canals. Heroine can kill in one dose. I've seen cases of people just "trying it out to see what it's like" and dying with the needle still in their arms. LSD hallucanations can be lethal, especially the most common one, belief that one can fly, and LSD remains in your system for the rest of your life, causing flashbacks at random times. Speed and downers both cause a variety of heart and metabolic problems. Even perscription pain killers, if abused, can cause endorphin imbalances. Drugs simply cannot be legalized, and remember that the war on drugs doesn't stop at attacking the dealers, it also goes into the many PSAs, mainly targeted at parents, that urge people against drugs. Also remember that if we find and kill enough drug lords, the rest will decide it isn't worth it. We've already got cooperation and extradition treaties with most drug exporting countries (like Colombia).

As for the War on Terror, taking the fight to them does two things. 1) It takes the fight away from American civilians...like you. 2) It puts them on the defensive so that they're less effective at launching effective strikes. Another theory out there is that it'll be harder to convince people to kill themselves for a cause if we clean up their country and give them a chance at a promising future.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Who but an American politician, they might ask, could look back across the past 200 years and insist that the United States had never gone to war except when it "had to"?

I know. Yeah, the US really "had to" go to Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

He created a war on terrorism rather than just seek to punish the indiviuals responsible for 9/11.

That kind of strategy is what got us in trouble in the first place. Those people who carried it out did not act alone. There is a bigger problem and the US needs to go after them and destroy them before they can attack this country.

Hobbit says it best:

We tried just catching a prosecuting, but it didn't work. Judicial rules prevented us from holding known terrorists for very long unless they were brought to trial, where further judicial rules would have much of the evidence thrown out. Oh, and that's assuming they don't take asylum in some terrorist supportive state like Iraq or Afghanistan. We declared war on them, which gives us the power to go find them wherever they are and hold them as long as we want when we catch them.

Likewise we have entered veitnam, korea, Somalia, yugoslavia (a couple times) grenada, Haiti (a couple times), lebanon, Iraq (a couple times), afghanistan, nicaraugua, etc... all with an interventionist policy. Yet bush continues on with an interventionist policy. Has he not learned his lesson?

Why did you include Korea? At least there is a South Korea. The whole peninsula would have gone to the Commies otherwise. Why did you include Afghanistan? People may be right about the Taliban still controlling areas and opium production increasing (I find it odd when pro-legalization liberals mention that one. Besides, why should that be the job of the military to destroy all the opium poppies?) but many things are better than they were. I might agree with you about some of those others though.

The war on terror can be won by ending the occupation of over 100+ countries.

Name these countries. I am having trouble coming up with 100+.

 

[Hobbit]

Name these countries. I am having trouble coming up with 100+.

Well, if you count each of the 50 states as a seperate country...

 

[JIHADTHIS]

A huge step in both "wars" would be to seal the borders and impose a moratorium on ALL immigration until we can figure out what the hell we're doing.

 

[Hobbit]

A huge step in both "wars" would be to seal the borders and impose a moratorium on ALL immigration until we can figure out what the hell we're doing.

Easier said than done. Right now, the borders actually are closed, and only people on verifiable, official business can cross...legally. A guy I know who is a missionary who hitchiked from Amman to Baghdad was allowed to cross, since he was an American citizen with Assemblies of God credentials, but the guy who gave him a ride to the border couldn't cross, nor could the guys on the other side of the border who gave him a ride after that.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Easier said than done. Right now, the borders actually are closed, and only people on verifiable, official business can cross...legally. A guy I know who is a missionary who hitchiked from Amman to Baghdad was allowed to cross, since he was an American citizen with Assemblies of God credentials, but the guy who gave him a ride to the border couldn't cross, nor could the guys on the other side of the border who gave him a ride after that.

I think he means US borders.

 

[tpahl]

That kind of strategy is what got us in trouble in the first place. Those people who carried it out did not act alone. There is a bigger problem and the US needs to go after them and destroy them before they can attack this country.

By getting involved you are creating the desire to come and attack this country, if we did not get involved in the first place they would not have the desire.

[qoute]Why did you include Korea? At least there is a South Korea. The whole peninsula would have gone to the Commies otherwise. Why did you include Afghanistan? People may be right about the Taliban still controlling areas and opium production increasing (I find it odd when pro-legalization liberals mention that one. Besides, why should that be the job of the military to destroy all the opium poppies?) but many things are better than they were. I might agree with you about some of those others though.[/quote]

The Taliban as bad as they may be, our not our problem. The north Koreans as bad as they may be our not out problem. I include them becaues they are examples of wars the US has been involved in when it is not our business.

Name these countries. I am having trouble coming up with 100+.

I posted a list not too long ago. http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132221&postcount=10

 

[tpahl]

That's a fairy tale fed to you by cynicists and far leftists like George Carlin and Ted Kennedy (why is he still in office?).

Ted Kennedy is a supporter of the drug war. And George Carlin is a comedian. I do not look torwards either for advice on political matters.

You can't take away drug prohibitions.

I think you meant to say a republican can't. I am not sure why that statement is true, but it is correct. They can not do it for some reason.

The Democrats at least ended drug prohbition the first time in the 1930s.

The only reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is because they have the power of momentum and alcohol only kills people who abuse it (that and we tried prohibition and it didn't work).

And yet we are trying it again and showing it does not work again.

Marijuana is as bad as tobacco, though not as addictive.

It does not matter how addictive or 'bad' you think it is. The whole point of the matter is that as free individuals we have a right to decide what goes into our bodies. The government has NO say in the matter. In fact no where in the constitution does it grant the federal government the power to regulate what people put in their bodies.

Cocaine and its derivatives can cause people to become violent, and with the strength boost it gives, that's very dangerous. Not only that, but Cocaine, when snorted, has been known to burn holes in people's noses and other respiratory canals. Heroine can kill in one dose. I've seen cases of people just "trying it out to see what it's like" and dying with the needle still in their arms. LSD hallucanations can be lethal, especially the most common one, belief that one can fly, and LSD remains in your system for the rest of your life, causing flashbacks at random times. Speed and downers both cause a variety of heart and metabolic problems. Even perscription pain killers, if abused, can cause endorphin imbalances.

First of all, many of these problems you mention are problems that exist solely because of drug prohibition. Just as there were bad batches of moonshine that killed people during alcohol prohibition. Second, violent acts are already illegal regardless of whether a person is on drugs or not. This would remain true once drugs are re-legalized.

Drugs simply cannot be legalized,

Does repeating this make it seem true to you?

and remember that the war on drugs doesn't stop at attacking the dealers, it also goes into the many PSAs, mainly targeted at parents, that urge people against drugs.

yeah, I know they waste tax payer money on commercials to tell kids and parents that drugs are bad. They are by and far a waste of money. Everyone already knows that without government commecials telling us this. If you really want to keep kids off drugs you would legalize them so that they would be sold in a controlled enviroment instead of in schools.

Also remember that if we find and kill enough drug lords, the rest will decide it isn't worth it.

Yeah, like that will work. Just like if we get all the dealers arrested then people will be afraid to deal.

Both situations once looked at from an economic standpoint make no sense. The more danger you put into the position (whether it be drug lord or street dealer) and the more people you arrest or kill, the higher the price becomes for drugs. The higher the price, the more interest we will find for the those positions. It is like squeezing a water balloon. You can squeeze in one place and it just bulges in other places.

We've already got cooperation and extradition treaties with most drug exporting countries (like Colombia).

So what? That does not mean we are winning. It just means we are screwing over more countries.

As for the War on Terror, taking the fight to them does two things. 1) It takes the fight away from American civilians...like you. 2) It puts them on the defensive so that they're less effective at launching effective strikes. Another theory out there is that it'll be harder to convince people to kill themselves for a cause if we clean up their country and give them a chance at a promising future.

as for your first theory, it also creates many more terrorists as you kill many more people and send your troops to many more foriegn countries.

As for the second theory, that is called nation building. It has not worked in the past and it will not work now. GW Bush was opposed to it in 2000 and promised not to do it.

Travis

 

[Hobbit]

First off, I looked at your list, and most of the countries on that list have U.S. troops in them by invitation. That's right, believe it or not, many countries actually WANT us there for protection, and being the nice guys we are, we give it to them.

Second, despite what you think, legalizing drugs will create more problems than it solves. First off, the problems with these drugs is not that they're made poorly, it's the drugs themselves. Heroin, in a very pure, refined form...KILLS PEOPLE IN A SINGLE DOSE, even when used correctly. Crack causes people to become violent. Legalizing it would cause an increase in the crime rate. LSD, no matter how well made it is, WILL MESS YOU UP AND STAY IN YOUR SYSTEM FOR AS LONG AS YOU ARE ALIVE! Marijuana may not be any worse than tobacco (which I think should be slowly banned over time, so as not to cause a catastrophe), but legalizing it would only be the first step to legalizing the others. Alcohol is the only thing I'm willing to let run its present course, as its proper use actually makes you live longer. If you actually believe legalizing these things will do more good than harm, you are living in a dream world, but that's moot, because it's not gonna happen anyway.

 

[tpahl]

First off, I looked at your list, and most of the countries on that list have U.S. troops in them by invitation. That's right, believe it or not, many countries actually WANT us there for protection, and being the nice guys we are, we give it to them.

Of course SOMEONE invited us there. That does not mean that everyone in the country wants us there (for example Saudi Arabia over the last decade). Or that their neighbors want us there, (for example Croatia, South Korea, Etc) Everytime we makes freinds with one nation by sending troops somewhere we are making enemies as well. There is always someone that we 'protecting' them from. Those people we are protecting them from are not going to be happy we are doing so. That creates enemies. Our military should not be making enemies like this unless it is absolutely necessary we be in a particular place. By far, the majority of the countries we have troops in whether invited or not, are not necessary for the protection of the USA.

Second, despite what you think, legalizing drugs will create more problems than it solves. First off, the problems with these drugs is not that they're made poorly, it's the drugs themselves. Heroin, in a very pure, refined form...KILLS PEOPLE IN A SINGLE DOSE, even when used correctly.

Not true. If that were true, it would not be used in medications, yet it is. You can OVERDOSE on it, yes, but used in a proper manner and from a reliable source, people generally do not die. But I must ask, do you beleive it is the governments job to decide what risks you take with your own body?

Crack causes people to become violent. Legalizing it would cause an increase in the crime rate.

Crack causes SOME people to become violent. Being violent is ALREADY against the crime and would remain so even if it were legal. What causes much more crime is the people having to steal to pay the extraordinary prices that prohibition has led to. With drugs being legal, there would be less of a need to steal, while the people that commited both theft AND violent acts whether high or not high would still be arrested. a higher percent of violent drug users would be arrested since police would be concentrating on the violence, not the drug use.

[

LSD, no matter how well made it is, WILL MESS YOU UP AND STAY IN YOUR SYSTEM FOR AS LONG AS YOU ARE ALIVE!

Again, who gets to chose what risks you take? You or the government?

Marijuana may not be any worse than tobacco (which I think should be slowly banned over time, so as not to cause a catastrophe), but legalizing it would only be the first step to legalizing the others. Alcohol is the only thing I'm willing to let run its present course, as its proper use actually makes you live longer. If you actually believe legalizing these things will do more good than harm, you are living in a dream world, but that's moot, because it's not gonna happen anyway.

It is not a dream world. All of these drugs WERE legal through MOST of US history. It is their prohibition that has lead to an increased use, violent crime to protect turf (just as alcohol prohbition led to violent crime as well), petty crime to pay for the large price (due to prohibition). These problems are all much worse for society than the problems the actual drug causes. And to make things worse they are problems in addition to the problems the actual drugs could cause because their prohbition has not decreased their usage at all. In fact it has increased despite spending billions.

Drug prohibition is one of the worst failures in US policy in its entire history. It will come to an end.