How Kerry & Bush differ on foreign policy
________________________________________
By David Westphal
Sacramento Bee Washington Bureau Chief
Published October 18, 2004
sacbee.com
WASHINGTON - Not since Vietnam have foreign policy issues risen to the top of Americans' concerns during a presidential campaign.
And not since Vietnam has the nation been so divided on what course to take on threats abroad.
The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and President Bush's bold war against Iraq have made foreign policy the No. 1 issue in the presidential campaign, and touched off a sustained national debate over how best to fight terrorism.
In polling this year, a majority of Americans have rated terrorism or Iraq the No. 1 issue - a turnabout from the marginal role foreign policy traditionally plays in a presidential campaign.
In a new book, Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay argue that Bush's full embrace of taking pre-emptive military action amounts to a revolution in U.S. foreign policy. By shedding the restraints of international institutions and alliances, and by using military might to unseat a sworn enemy, they argue, Bush has forsaken decades of history that led the country to its superpower status.
Critics of the Bush approach, the Brookings Institution scholars say Bush decided to "aggressively go abroad searching for monsters to destroy."
Defenders of Bush's action on Iraq say his tradition-shattering decisions have been precisely the bold opening strokes required in a new world of terrorism.
The debate comes down to a fundamental question of how the world's lone military superpower should deal with its new vulnerability to small numbers of terrorists willing to commit suicide for a cause.
In the era of terrorism, Bush says, the United States is best protected by acting first - and abroad.Kerry responds that this mind-set led Bush to rash actions that resulted in today's violence and upheaval in Iraq.
Here's a closer look at the differences between Bush and Kerry on foreign policy:
Iraq
For a while this summer, it appeared Iraq might not make it into the top tier of contested issues in the campaign. With Kerry's decision last month to go on the attack, it's far and away Issue No. 1 today.
Bush calls Kerry's criticism merely the latest chapter in a long record of flip-flopping on Iraq - a vote to support the war followed by a vote against funding it followed by further equivocation. But at a time when continuing violence threatens Bush's goal of a stable Iraqi democracy, Kerry is finding resonance with his view that Bush rushed into war without sufficient planning or international support.
Opening last week's debate, Kerry said Bush "regrettably rushed us into a war ... pushed alliances away, and as a result, America is now bearing this extraordinary burden where we are not as safe as we ought to be."
Kerry says he would call a global summit on Iraq soon after his inauguration and would court greater international involvement, but otherwise his plan is not dramatically different from the course the president advises.
Even so, Kerry says everything about the way Bush began the war was wrong: He gave up on U.N. inspectors too quickly, rushed into war without thinking through its consequences, and diverted resources away from more important targets, including the capture of Osama bin Laden and strengthening homeland security. Kerry says the war also caused the administration to take its eye off Iran and North Korea, countries where nuclear weapons development had advanced far beyond Iraq's program.
Bush says Kerry's criticisms lack credibility because of the senator's wavering on Iraq. Bush says his action is necessary to diminish the threats of Middle East instability and terrorism.
"Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, and the world is better off without him in power," Bush said in the second debate.
Integral to the president's strategy on Iraq is the idea a democratic Iraq could be the seed that sprouts benefits in the region.
"A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that's essential," he said. "A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country."
Bush also said if the United States is going to be fighting a global war on terrorism, it's better to do it abroad than at home.
U.S. military
The future of the U.S. military represents another bright line between the two candidates.
Defying the Bush administration's strategy of a lighter, more mobile military, Kerry proposes an additional 40,000 soldiers for the regular Army plus a doubling of Special Forces to "prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts." National Guard and Reserve units would be transferred to homeland security tasks.
"The fact is, the war in Iraq has taken a real toll on our armed services," Kerry said in a recent speech. "Ninety percent of the Army's active-duty combat divisions are either in Iraq, have been to Iraq or are on their way."
Like Bush, he says he opposes a revival of the draft, but he also says the military is so overextended that its reliance on extending Guard and Reserve tours amounts to a "back-door draft."
Kerry blasts Bush for not doing more to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, specifically underfunding a program that destroys weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.
The president opposes a regular Army expansion. He says the U.S. military must continue its transformation to a speedier, more adaptable institution that can deal with small-scale insurgencies and rogue states.
"Over the coming decade, we'll deploy a more agile and more flexible force, which means that more of our troops will be stationed and deployed from here at home," Bush said in a speech to the VFW national convention.
It was there he announced a plan to transfer 60,000 to 70,000 military personnel from Germany and South Korea to domestic assignments.
Bush has increased military spending by 40 percent over four years and backed continued development of major weapons systems. Despite the Middle East conflicts, the president has gone full speed ahead on missile defense, deploying a prototype in Alaska and proposing $10 billion more in 2005 spending.
Kerry supports the president's missile defense initiative but would scale back funding.
The president agreed with Kerry in their first debate that the spread of nuclear weapons was his biggest concern. Earlier in his term, Bush established the Proliferation Security Initiative, a program joined by 15 countries to interdict shipments of weapons of mass destruction.
Homeland security
Although he opposed it at the outset, Bush bowed to congressional pressure and signed legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security, which combined 22 federal agencies into one unit aimed at preventing terrorism at home.
The department, Bush says, represents one-half his terrorism strategy, the other half being to take the fight to terrorists abroad.
The president says his administration is making good progress at hardening potential domestic targets and strengthening border protections. He is proposing $3.6 billion in first-responder grants this year, based mostly on population, and additional funds for greater-risk urban areas.
Bush has set a goal of inspecting two-thirds of containers arriving at 19 U.S. ports. Bioterrorism also has been targeted, with nearly 1,000 food inspectors hired. Sensors that detect bioweapons have been installed in nearly three dozen cities.
Kerry counters that homeland security has been one of the president's biggest weaknesses since 9/11, charging he has not moved quickly enough or devoted enough resources to the mission.
"This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security," Kerry said.
The Democratic senator particularly faults Bush on port security, saying only 5 percent of containers entering the country are being checked. Kerry got ammunition last week from a government report that said more needs to be done to prevent weapons of mass destruction from arriving on oceangoing cargo containers.
He also proposes setting national standards for community preparedness, port security and facilities such as chemical plants.
International institutions
Nowhere is the philosophical divide on foreign policy more pronounced than in the candidates' view of international institutions.
Kerry says institutions such as the United Nations, multilateral agreements on arms control, global warming and other topics are critical to the United States' ability to lead the world.
Bush says these international ties often merely constrain the United States at a time when it can't afford to be pinned down.
"The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to veto by countries like France," the president said.
Bush launched a war against Iraq after France and other nations turned aside a United States U.N. resolution seeking international support for invasion. Early in his administration, Bush rejected several international agreements, including a biological weapons treaty and the proposed Kyoto global-warming treaty.
Kerry, a proponent of multilateral action, says he would travel during his first 100 days as president to the United Nations and allies' capitals to announce the United States "has rejoined the community of nations."
Cooperation in the international arena is necessary, he says, because military might alone won't enable the United States to retain its global clout.
"You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global-warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations," Kerry said.
"You have to earn that respect." |
