US Election 2004

This month we will find that the anybody-but-Bush Democratic primary process has crippled the Kerry campaign.  In this process there was not a rush to judgment, but a rush to a decision as too little judgment was used.  Kerry’s primary run lacked a ‘Where’s the Beef’ moment to establish that his “new” ideas are anything other than rhetoric.

This defect is clear in Kerry’s statements on fighting terrorism which amount to promising to do everything Bush has done only better with the exception of invading state sponsors of terrorism like Iraq. 

Today, AP’s Mary Dalrymple reports:

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday that President Bush has responded too slowly to the terrorist threat three years after the Sept. 11 attacks and has adopted policies that have encouraged terrorism.
"I regret that the president has no sense of urgency," Kerry said during a hastily called news conference following President Bush's Rose Garden appearance in which he announced his support for creating a national intelligence czar and counterterrorism center.

The Democratic challenger welcomed Bush's decision to embrace some of the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations but argued that with the nation at war, the Republican incumbent and self-described "war president" should move more quickly.

"We can't afford reluctance in the protection of our country," Kerry said.

Earlier in the day, in an interview on CNN's "American Morning," Kerry said the administration's policies are "actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists." The administration hasn't reached out to other countries and the Muslim community, he said, and hasn't done enough to protect U.S. ports, chemical plants and nuclear facilities. [M Dalrymple, Kerry Decries Bush Anti-Terror Policy, Find Law, 8/2/2004]

Frankly, Kerry has made one accurate identification of Bush’s weakness in the War against Terrorism: the prosecution of the war has been too slow.  However, Kerry’s alternative is to be even slower by subordinating timely effective action against terrorists to agreement from the obstructionists in the UN.

Kerry’s assertion that Bush encourages terrorist recruitment is absurd.  Bush’s counterterrorism policies combine deterrence, initiatives for political reforms by foreign governments, and the communication of backlash against the terrorists’ violence.  In an empirical analysis of counterterrorism policies, Ted Robert Gurr found these three elements have been the keys to counterterrorism success.

However, Kerry has objected to Bush’s deterrence policies of waging war on state sponsors of terrorism.  Contrary to Bush’s efforts of constructive engagement for reform with countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Kerry advocates a confrontational approach with our allies.  Kerry advocates carrots for our enemies and sticks for our friends.  In addition, Kerry has personally undermined the backlash against the terrorists by portraying Bush as the cause of terrorism.

The issue in the election should be who will commit to eliminate--using all the tools of American power including war--all regimes that sponsor terrorism within the next four years. 

Can Kerry make this commitment?  No, because his regressive pre-9/11 approach to terrorism has proven itself as a catalyst to growing terrorist attacks and failures to contain state sponsors of terrorism.

Can Bush make this commitment?  He is on pace to achieve this objective (3 down so far), but he has failed to set such a deadline.  It is not too late for him to do so publically.  His reelection may require such clarity in order to make the electoral choice obvious to all including the state sponsors of terrorism that are counting of Kerry’s election to save their regimes.

Image Source: University of South Carolina

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this