Biden Trying to Give Kerry's Foreign Policy Legs

[Annie]

Not going to work:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005608

A Democratic Foreign Policy
President Kerry won't thumb his nose at the rest of the world.

BY JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
Sunday, September 12, 2004 12:01 a.m.

America faces two overriding national-security challenges: win the death-struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism and keep the world's most dangerous weapons away from its most dangerous people. To prevail, we need a new approach--and a new president.

After 9/11, I believed--and I still do--that if we exercised the full measure of our power, including our ideas and ideals, we could have united this nation and other nations in common cause.

Interesting that the senior senator on foreign affairs, could so seriously be confused between knee jerk platitudes and actual recognition of a problem. The people of our country, were not so easily persuaded. Interesting too, that Biden, who has been a 'serious government servant' for so many years, seems to be ignoring all the attacks the US had ignored, to it's folly, during the years he could have acted?

Ultimately, history will judge this administration harshly not for the mistakes it made, but for the opportunities it squandered.

We will have to wait for history, since the story has yet to be finished, much less writ.

Had they been asked, Americans were ready to join a new program of national service, and to spread the cost and hardship of the war on terror beyond our soldiers and their families.

While this must surely resonate with Jimmy Carter, just HOW would a government sponsored volunteer service have shifterd the burden from the soldier to the general population? I mean there is plenty to volunteer for, just lost on how my helping restore prarie grass and flowers, is going to help the guy in Kabul or a grieving family member?

Had they been treated with respect, old allies and new friends were ready to join us in a new compact for freedom and security.

This is nonsensical. We had been working within the UN framework for how many years? It was a US president that enforced the decision to keep the US forces out of Baghdad in Gulf War I, for the best of intentions, if also the worst of results. After the UN passed yet another resolution regarding Iraq, which President and Secretary of State, made personal appearances at the UN, in an attempt to build consensus? The UN wanted to prolong the crisis indefinately, led by the imam Blix.

Today, after a necessary war in Afghanistan and an optional war in Iraq, Americans are rightly confident in the example of our military power.

I guess that was his Einstein moment.

But we have forgotten the power of our example.

Not really, I noticed Libya and others more quietly, routing out terrorists and purging the WMD and terrorists from their lands.

And for all of America's great might, we are more alone in the world than at any time in recent history. As a result, we are less secure than we could or should be.

Logic failure. Have to buy the first argument to go onto the second. I know that we are not more alone, we've just unloaded some dead weight and forged new alliances with future leading countries from areas like Eastern Europe. I mean we, the US are standing with Turkey and more quietly with other moderate Islamic states, while the likes of France embrace the radical Islamicist regimes.

A Democratic foreign policy would seek to recapture the totality of our strength and restore our nation to the respect it once enjoyed by building effective alliances and international organizations; forging a prevention strategy to defuse threats to security long before they are on the verge of exploding; reforming failed or antidemocratic states that are sources of instability, radicalism and terror; and retaining the right to act pre-emptively in the face of imminent danger.

Such an approach will require not only a fundamental shift in American foreign policy but a reconsideration by our allies of their own foreign policies. A Kerry presidency would stand a far better chance of facilitating that reconsideration than this president, who has thumbed his nose at the world and asked us to accept it as diplomacy. The Bush administration has shown little interest in international alliances, organizations and treaties. To them, our military might is the most important tool in our foreign policy kit. Because that might is so much greater than anyone else's, they see allies and international agreements as more burden than benefit.

Like the Kerry-Edwards 'plan' that is now a 'secret' this is quite loud in rhetoric but devoid of specifics.

As a result, this administration said "no thanks" to NATO when it invoked Article V after 9/11.

I will admit I thought this was a mistake, but only in the sense of if the administration had picked it up, we would have seen how it was an impossible situation to move quickly in Afganistan, which we were able to do without the acceptance.

It rejected France and Germany's initial offer of troops for Afghanistan. It served "freedom fries" on Air Force One at the very time it should have been seeking more help in Iraq. And it rejected a litany of treaties without even attempting to negotiate responsible compromises.

Well just silly, France and German troops have neither the weapons, nor trained troops to work with US on the battlefield of the 21st C., thusfar...

Democrats disagree with this approach. Most of the threats we face--from radical fundamentalism to the spread of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states that flout the rules--have no respect for borders. Not one can be met solely with unilateral, military force. Even when we can succeed by ourselves, there are compelling reasons not to act alone--from basing rights to burden-sharing to the need for legitimacy.

That's not true, the Congressional backing of the resolution was nearly unanimous and bi-partisan by definition.

Iraq demonstrates the price we pay for a unilateralist foreign policy. There was never any doubt that we could defeat Saddam Hussein without a single foreign soldier. But because we chose to wage war virtually alone, we have been responsible for the aftermath virtually alone. The price is all too easy to calculate: 90% of the troops--and 90% of the casualties--are American.

Another fallacious arguement, there was no scenario where 'the world' ie France and Germany, China and Russia, were going to join us on the ground or in the coffers of rebuilding Iraq. There is no scenario Kerry, Biden, the Democrats can come up with that would bring them in either.

This has been the core of the Democratic message. But we also believe that the credibility and effectiveness of alliances, treaties and international organizations depend on a willingness not only to live by the rules, but to enforce them. That's the principal reason many leading Democrats in Congress voted to authorize the president to use force in Iraq, if he deemed it necessary. We did not need a doctrine of pre-emption to use force against Iraq, for Saddam posed no imminent threat to American security.

Not what was said at the time or for years. Most persuavsively by Clinton led arguments in 1998.

This administration's effort to turn military pre-emption from a longstanding option into a one-size-fits-all doctrine says to rogue states that their best insurance policy against regime-change is to acquire weapons of mass destruction as quickly as possible--which is one reason North Korea's nuclear arsenal has apparently increased by 400% under this administration's watch. It gives a green light to India and Pakistan, Russia and Chechnya, China and Taiwan to use force first and ask questions later. And it requires a standard of proof for intelligence that may be impossible to meet unless we cut corners, as we did in Iraq.

Shit! We hit Iran, NK, and Dafur and I missed it! Dang this administration is able to keep secrets! Now we are running India, Pakistan and Russia, and no one let us know? Bush should be crowned king, for sure!

Democrats would forge a comprehensive prevention strategy with much more emphasis on programs to secure and destroy loose weapons and materials in Russia and beyond; fully funded homeland security budgets to detect and respond to terrorist attacks; new international laws to seize suspect cargoes on the high seas and in international airspace; new international law enforcement, intelligence and financial alliances to uproot terrorists and end their funding; tougher non-proliferation strategies, including no-notice, on-site inspections and a reformed Non Proliferation Treaty; reinvigorated diplomacy to explain our policies and expose lies; and a sustained commitment to development and democratization to prove to people around the world that we offer hope, and that our enemies offer nothing but hatred and despair.

Again, sounds like we have to trust the 'secret plan.' No details, just rhetoric. I especially like the 'expose lies' considering the problems of the chief DNC network cheerleader!

No one should doubt that under a Kerry administration, America's military will remain second to none and that force will be used--without asking anyone's permission--when circumstances warrant. John Kerry will not go looking for trouble, but he will never flinch in its face.

Sorry, for 'no one' my brain just jumps to, 'everyone should doubt...'

Today, every citizen of the free world faces a nexus of new threats--terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction--that demands a new response. Containment and deterrence got us through the Cold War, and they still make sense most of the time. But they do not suffice when the enemy is a stateless actor, with no territory or people to defend, amassing stealthy weapons instead of visible armies. That's why a broad prevention strategy is so important. It is also why our allies must be willing to get much tougher with rogue states who harbor terrorists, seek to acquire WMD, or pose a proliferation risk.

I guess without a 'country' we should just take the individuals to court, preferably the 'WCC' which maybe along with Kyoto, Kerry has promised a signature for all those foreign leader endorsements. I'm sure Putin is considering signing, as soon as he is done with his new, more sensitive reorganization in his own country.

In the 1990s, the U.S. and Europe agreed, with great difficulty, that a state cedes its sovereignty when it systematically abuses the rights of its own people. Now we should apply that same logic to states without democratic checks that seek to amass WMD or harbor terrorists. Democrats would develop and use every tool short of force to convince a Milosevic, a Saddam or a Taliban to meet minimum standards of responsibility. But if these steps fail to persuade, a Democratic foreign policy would be prepared to coerce. Failing states are cracks in the foundation of our international system. There have always been poor countries whose people suffer under corrupt, incompetent and ruthlessly barbaric dictators. What is new is the effect on our lives and the threat to our own security as a consequence of such regimes.

Again with non-specific but European appealing rhetoric. I really used to admire Biden...my bad, I guess...

The very symbols of our technological prowess--from the Internet to the jet plane--have become weapons in the hands of stateless actors who reach out from weak and failed states to attack us in our cities. The potential spread of WMD makes the threat literally existential.

WTF? Stop with the technology?

Democrats would challenge the American people and our allies to refocus our attention, reallocate our resources and reform our institutions to address this challenge.

Again, what? Perhaps we should become candlemakers and blacksmiths?

Together, we have to take seriously the task of economic development, commit to broader and deeper debt relief, buffer countries against economic shocks, give them tools to combat corruption, dramatically expand our investment in global education, reorient the Bretton Woods institutions and the U.N. to stabilize weak states, and lead the world in a massive effort to combat the scourge of disease, especially AIDS.

Now that was a segue, geez what the hell? All now thrown against the wall, is any sticking?

We also have to take seriously nation-building. This administration came to office disdaining the concept, only to be confronted with the two biggest nation-building challenges since World War II.

Another freaking weird transition, the presumed stupidity of his audience is becoming crystal clear.

Thus far, it merits a failing grade in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Based on what, Mr. Biden?

A Democratic foreign policy would empower experts to plan post-conflict reconstruction ahead of time, not on the fly; it would build a standing roster of international police to handle security after we topple a tyrant; it would create a system to rapidly stand up indigenous security forces. And Democrats would make sure that when it comes to a war of choice, we think twice about initiating the conflict if we're not prepared for the post-conflict.

How? BEFORE a conflict assumes the conflict will not begin, until the 'post-conflict' is resolved, if I am following his logic. SO, we would still not be in Afghanistan? I guess the most logical question to the esteemed Senator would be his/Democratic post-reconstruction to dealing with NK or Iran if their actions would indicate that the US has no choice but to act, of course AFTER they develop the POST CONFLICT PLAN, pretty difficult unless one has contract with a crystal ball...

Democrats also would strongly support the forces of progress in nondemocratic countries--not with reckless campaigns to impose democracy by force from the outside, but by working with modernizers from the inside to build the institutions of democracy, over the long haul. Above all, John Kerry and Democrats understand that those who would spread radical fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction are beyond the reach of reason. We must defeat them. But hundreds of millions of hearts and minds around the world are open to American ideas and ideals. We must reach them.

Assume the actor here would be Iran, the clock is ticking Mr. Biden, what has Congress put forth? The Senate Foreign Relations committee? Yourself?

Mr. Biden is the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[UsaPride]

Kathianne, Awesome job on the comments!!!
Now, what does this mean?

Had they been asked, Americans were ready to join a new program of national service, and to spread the cost and hardship of the war on terror beyond our soldiers and their families.

What's the new program?

Had they been treated with respect, old allies and new friends were ready to join us in a new compact for freedom and security.

Treated with respect? Come on! And we're not the only ones fighting in this fight, we have old allies and new friends fighting with us.
Kathianne, again, great job on the comments!!

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, Awesome job on the comments!!!
Now, what does this mean?

What's the new program?

Treated with respect? Come on! And we're not the only ones fighting in this fight, we have old allies and new friends fighting with us.
Kathianne, again, great job on the comments!!

USA, first, thank you. Now it seems that you are looking for answers, where none exist! That's the beauty of the article, it goes on and on, while saying virtually nothing!

Service at home, voluntary or not, will not change a thing with those that are determined to our extermination. Maybe clean streams will piss them off, but it won't change their minds.

 

[Avatar4321]

I almost hope Biden gets involved in this alittle more. Biden has been one of the Senators advocating the draft and he will probably scare quite a number of people away from Kerry.

 

[Comrade]

We need more fiskings like this, thanks Kathianne!

 

[Annie]

We need more fiskings like this, thanks Kathianne!

Thanks! ~blush~