SEATTLE -- Declaring the Bush administration has "made America less safe than we should be in a dangerous world," Sen. John Kerry on Thursday unveiled a four-point plan for national security that his campaign hopes will draw a sharp contrast with the president.
It was the Massachusetts Democrat's attempt to tap into growing public uneasiness that the Iraq war as executed by President Bush may have made the world more dangerous.
The senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has drawn criticism, even among some in his party, for not forcefully articulating a clear and distinctive national security policy until now.
Kerry offered four "imperatives" for improving national security, including an emphasis on international coalitions as the appropriate antidote to Bush's pre-emptive war in Iraq that was opposed by many of America's traditional allies.
The four main ideas were to repair ties to U.S. allies strained by Bush's foreign policy, modernize the military to better fight terrorists, reduce U.S. dependence on Middle East oil and increase the use of what international affairs experts call America's soft power--the potential influence of its economic, diplomatic and democratic ideals.
"They've made America less safe than we should be in a dangerous world," Kerry, a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran, said of the administration in a speech before an audience of veterans and graduate students.
The administration, the presidential hopeful charged, has upset long-standing U.S. foreign policy that emphasized alliances, which were maintained by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. In the war on terrorism, he said, alliances are vital in sharing intelligence to root out threats.
"In short they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership and that is what we must restore and that is what I will restore," the senator said.
Furthermore, he accused the administration of violating a cardinal foreign policy enunciated by President Theodore Roosevelt at the start of the last century that the U.S. should "`walk softly but carry a big stick ...' They bullied when they should have persuaded."
"These four imperatives are a response to an inescapable reality: War has changed; the enemy is different, and we must think and act anew," Kerry said, echoing a phrase from President Abraham Lincoln's second message to Congress in 1862.
Republicans defended the Bush administration against the Democrat's accusations.
"Sen. Kerry today argued for steps that are already in process," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). "The fact of the matter is, NATO and the UN are involved in [the] Iraqi reconstruction and training Iraqi forces to provide for their own security.
"The American people want steady leadership, not John Kerry's baseless rhetoric and anger," he added.
Splitting hairs
National security analysts were hard pressed to discern the differences between Kerry's position and Bush's. "Honestly, this could almost be a Bush speech--especially the part about weapons of mass destruction, murder and the Iraq mission," Charles Pena, an analyst at the Cato Institute, said in an e-mail message.
"Unfortunately, Kerry is not offering a clear alternative or anything really original," Pena said. "It's a lot of recycled Clinton-era stuff, and we need a new and different foreign policy in the 21st Century and post-9/11 world."
"There is not a huge difference on Iraq," Michael O'Hanlon, national security analyst at the Brookings Institution said by e-mail. "There is not a huge difference on using military force and intelligence in the war on terror.
"There is not yet a big difference on homeland security policy as best I can tell," he added. "There is not yet even a huge difference on policy towards the Islamic world, though Kerry would be more engaged in the Arab-Israeli negotiations."
But O'Hanlon noted a "huge difference" in the emphasis Kerry would place on alliances and international institutions, saying the damage Bush policies had wreaked on trans-Atlantic relations could not be "overestimated."
"Kerry would be more multilateral and thus create more international legitimacy--much more legitimacy--for any American action," he said. "The question is, would he be so multilateral as to lack decisiveness? This is the danger. I doubt it, but it will be the question he'll have to answer more concretely in the months ahead."
One of Kerry's difficulties was that as many of the administration's initial plans for Iraq have shattered in the wake of the ongoing violence, Bush has moved toward the senator's internationalist position.
Bush has looked to the UN, once scoffed at by administration insiders, for salvation, hoping it can help form an Iraqi interim government by June 30 that would allow the U.S. to start transferring control of the country to Iraqis.
Thursday's speech by Kerry was the kickoff to an 11-day campaign stretch that includes the Memorial Day holiday and the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, with the candidate focusing on national security.
It is in part an effort to capitalize on declining public support for Bush's Iraq policy. Recent polls have indicated that a majority of Americans believe it was not worth going to war to topple Saddam Hussein and that the invasion and occupation have made the world more dangerous.
But the same polls paradoxically show that a majority of respondents say they trust Bush to keep the nation safer than they do Kerry.
Matter of perception
In part, Kerry is hurt by the perceptions that have bedeviled Democrats for decades: that they are weaker on defense than Republicans.
The Democratic Party became more ambivalent about the use of force following the Vietnam War. There was also significant Democratic opposition to President Ronald Reagan's 1980s military buildup.
It was essentially the military modernization under President Bill Clinton, however, that helped U.S. forces quickly rout the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and conventional military forces in Iraq, experts have said.
"It has not always been the case that Republicans were seen as stronger on defense, and it won't last forever," O'Hanlon said. "But it has lasted a good while now and it won't be trivial to change the perception. Kerry will do well to break even on the issue come election day."
The steady drumbeat on national-security issues Kerry plans to maintain into early June is intended to move the needle for Democrats on such discussions. And a day after statements by government officials that Al Qaeda is planning an attack in the coming months, Kerry delivered a stern warning.
"So this is my message to the terrorists," he said. "As commander in chief I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing your networks. We'll use every resource of our power to destroy you."
Chicago Tribune.
It was the Massachusetts Democrat's attempt to tap into growing public uneasiness that the Iraq war as executed by President Bush may have made the world more dangerous.
The senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has drawn criticism, even among some in his party, for not forcefully articulating a clear and distinctive national security policy until now.
Kerry offered four "imperatives" for improving national security, including an emphasis on international coalitions as the appropriate antidote to Bush's pre-emptive war in Iraq that was opposed by many of America's traditional allies.
The four main ideas were to repair ties to U.S. allies strained by Bush's foreign policy, modernize the military to better fight terrorists, reduce U.S. dependence on Middle East oil and increase the use of what international affairs experts call America's soft power--the potential influence of its economic, diplomatic and democratic ideals.
"They've made America less safe than we should be in a dangerous world," Kerry, a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran, said of the administration in a speech before an audience of veterans and graduate students.
The administration, the presidential hopeful charged, has upset long-standing U.S. foreign policy that emphasized alliances, which were maintained by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. In the war on terrorism, he said, alliances are vital in sharing intelligence to root out threats.
"In short they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership and that is what we must restore and that is what I will restore," the senator said.
Furthermore, he accused the administration of violating a cardinal foreign policy enunciated by President Theodore Roosevelt at the start of the last century that the U.S. should "`walk softly but carry a big stick ...' They bullied when they should have persuaded."
"These four imperatives are a response to an inescapable reality: War has changed; the enemy is different, and we must think and act anew," Kerry said, echoing a phrase from President Abraham Lincoln's second message to Congress in 1862.
Republicans defended the Bush administration against the Democrat's accusations.
"Sen. Kerry today argued for steps that are already in process," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). "The fact of the matter is, NATO and the UN are involved in [the] Iraqi reconstruction and training Iraqi forces to provide for their own security.
"The American people want steady leadership, not John Kerry's baseless rhetoric and anger," he added.
Splitting hairs
National security analysts were hard pressed to discern the differences between Kerry's position and Bush's. "Honestly, this could almost be a Bush speech--especially the part about weapons of mass destruction, murder and the Iraq mission," Charles Pena, an analyst at the Cato Institute, said in an e-mail message.
"Unfortunately, Kerry is not offering a clear alternative or anything really original," Pena said. "It's a lot of recycled Clinton-era stuff, and we need a new and different foreign policy in the 21st Century and post-9/11 world."
"There is not a huge difference on Iraq," Michael O'Hanlon, national security analyst at the Brookings Institution said by e-mail. "There is not a huge difference on using military force and intelligence in the war on terror.
"There is not yet a big difference on homeland security policy as best I can tell," he added. "There is not yet even a huge difference on policy towards the Islamic world, though Kerry would be more engaged in the Arab-Israeli negotiations."
But O'Hanlon noted a "huge difference" in the emphasis Kerry would place on alliances and international institutions, saying the damage Bush policies had wreaked on trans-Atlantic relations could not be "overestimated."
"Kerry would be more multilateral and thus create more international legitimacy--much more legitimacy--for any American action," he said. "The question is, would he be so multilateral as to lack decisiveness? This is the danger. I doubt it, but it will be the question he'll have to answer more concretely in the months ahead."
One of Kerry's difficulties was that as many of the administration's initial plans for Iraq have shattered in the wake of the ongoing violence, Bush has moved toward the senator's internationalist position.
Bush has looked to the UN, once scoffed at by administration insiders, for salvation, hoping it can help form an Iraqi interim government by June 30 that would allow the U.S. to start transferring control of the country to Iraqis.
Thursday's speech by Kerry was the kickoff to an 11-day campaign stretch that includes the Memorial Day holiday and the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, with the candidate focusing on national security.
It is in part an effort to capitalize on declining public support for Bush's Iraq policy. Recent polls have indicated that a majority of Americans believe it was not worth going to war to topple Saddam Hussein and that the invasion and occupation have made the world more dangerous.
But the same polls paradoxically show that a majority of respondents say they trust Bush to keep the nation safer than they do Kerry.
Matter of perception
In part, Kerry is hurt by the perceptions that have bedeviled Democrats for decades: that they are weaker on defense than Republicans.
The Democratic Party became more ambivalent about the use of force following the Vietnam War. There was also significant Democratic opposition to President Ronald Reagan's 1980s military buildup.
It was essentially the military modernization under President Bill Clinton, however, that helped U.S. forces quickly rout the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and conventional military forces in Iraq, experts have said.
"It has not always been the case that Republicans were seen as stronger on defense, and it won't last forever," O'Hanlon said. "But it has lasted a good while now and it won't be trivial to change the perception. Kerry will do well to break even on the issue come election day."
The steady drumbeat on national-security issues Kerry plans to maintain into early June is intended to move the needle for Democrats on such discussions. And a day after statements by government officials that Al Qaeda is planning an attack in the coming months, Kerry delivered a stern warning.
"So this is my message to the terrorists," he said. "As commander in chief I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing your networks. We'll use every resource of our power to destroy you."
Chicago Tribune.
