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.