Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Is Kerry Worth Dying For?

I feel just like James Tarranto of the Wall Street Journal that Kerry's desire to have international buy-in overshadows his words that he would act unilaterally if we had to. That's just not believable. The thought of him as president is very scary...I think we can kiss goodbye the first strike don't wait until there's an imminent threat approach with Kerry in the Whitehouse. That's why I think the title of Tarranto's piece below should say Kerry instead of the UN!

Is the U.N. Worth Dying For?
From an article in today's Washington Post on John Kerry's approach to foreign policy:

Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that
the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of
a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of
U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of
the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American
troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the
outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

So the U.N.--that club of dictators and anti-Semites--is worth dying for, but America isn't? This quote sharply summarizes why the thought of waking up two weeks from today to the news that Kerry is president-elect invokes in us a sense of utter dread.

For a concrete example of how this might play out, we turn to Park Sang-seek, a Korean "peace studies" academic, who writes (with apparent approval) in the Korea Herald:

Kerry is likely to rely on the United Nations in dealing with any future crises
in Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula. Take a hypothetical situation in the
Korean Peninsula: it is discovered that North Korea has experimented with
nuclear weapons or exported nuclear materials to hostile nations or terrorist
groups. Bush may make a surgical strike without consulting South Korea and the
United Nations. Kerry is likely to try to solve the issue through multilateral
forums, particularly the United Nations.

If North Korea gives nukes to terrorists and this is how a President Kerry responds, soldiers may not be the only Americans to die for the U.N.


Ockhamsrazor said...

Now before Tiny and his gang of two jump all over me about this one know this; I'm in the military and my job in the military qualifies me as an operator and not some REMF. So if you aren't or you haven't been in the military then think twice before attacking my view.

I think that dying in an operation that is, or is viewed as unilateral may be worse and even unjustified. Our military goes places it doesn't belong from time to time and we should stop doing that. The only way we can stop doing that is to have more of a coalition approach.
If I was to die in the line of duty I would certainly want it to be in the defense of something noble and honorable and not some slimy power grab or some mission meant to prop up a ruthless dictator.

Kerry made those comments about Bosnia, which our country should never have gotten involved with, and he made them in regard to his view on the Vietnam war---another place our country had no right being.

That's not a comment on Iraq at all so don't construe it as one.

Tiny said...

Ock, I thank and commend your service to our country. But your being in the military doesn't make your view correct or off limits. Also you have no idea how many people read my blog or what their backgrounds would be surprised. A few things, first I think its scary that people in the military might consciously be thinking is the order to charge this hill for a just cause or not before they start to move their feet! I'm not saying you would, just a scary thought. It's not your place to question or understand why but to just do it. When your in a bar on leave your opinion is your's to have. But, unless your a general on the joint chiefs or a member of the security council what makes you think you know all the facts or reasons we take action anywhere that we do? For an eloquent view of things going wrong with military action read this

Ockhamsrazor said...

Just curious as to why the comments aren't showing up on this one.

Ockhamsrazor said...

I appreciate your comments. I didn’t say my comment was off limits because I am in the military I simply asked everyone who wants to comment on this to think twice before spouting off.

Perhaps I would be surprised by how many people read your blog but I can’t help but notice that I was the first to ever comment on anything you wrote. See how boring it is when everyone just agrees with you?

I can tell you that operators in the military do not try to justify the orders they are given. I’m speaking more in the sense of looking back at an operation. Take Black Hawk Down for instance. Those Delta Boys and Rangers died for no good reason in the end. Now on that day they were heroes, I completely salute and stand in awe of them, I know some of the people who were in on that particular op so I’m not talking out of my ass here. But in the grand scheme of things the government made their deaths meaningless (actually worse) because we packed our bags and got the hell out of dodge. Thus letting psycho terrorist groups everywhere know that we could be beaten if they simply kill a few guys, drag them around and make sure it gets on the evening news.

So was that worth those two great guys dying (not too mention the Rangers)? I say no. Had we had a broad force of nations willing to stay there and make it right then it would have been a meaningful sacrifice.

Tiny said...

Hey Ock...ya I agree there are mistakes....but again read that email on the link I provided...and interesting take I think. As for comments on my blog...lots of people who know me don't like to join sites and so don't and so can comment. Hey I'm glad your is boring if we all agree.