A little matter of substance
Kerry also argued that the only justification for war would be a threat that would be "real and imminent." But imminence is no guide in the world of terrorism when innocents can be killed by a few terrorists, dressed as civilians, willing to commit suicide, carrying a nuclear bomb in a suitcase. Does this mean he opposes a pre-emptive policy against terrorism?
His notion that "any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response" implies that we should wait until we have been attacked. But we can't wait for the terrorists to hit us. We must take the war to the terrorists on their turf. The same rationale must apply, too, if we find out that the terrorist networks are colluding secretly with rogue regimes. So exactly what does John Kerry mean when he says he will wage a "smarter" war on terror?
On one point the senator was clearly right, and that is that we cannot fight a war without a plan to win the peace. The brilliant success of the Iraq war has been followed by a largely botched sequel. What we must do is take all necessary measures, including military efforts, to express American resolve and its willingness to pay for peace, if necessary, with American forces.
Henry Adams once wrote, "Practical politics consists in ignoring facts." Perhaps it is too much to expect that a convention speech would be different. But Senator Kerry will now have to reveal the true measure of his policies in the campaign and the debates. Bromides simply won't do.
advertisement
