Kerry as Chamberlain?

William Tucker provides this analysis of Matt Bia's New York Times article on John Kerry. His conclusion:

All this tells you what's about to happen if John Kerry is elected the next President. Not only does he not have the fortitude to fight the war on terror, he doesn't even believe we're in a war. Terror will be explained away as "crime" and ultimately "an aberration." Councils of world leaders will sit around mulling over the problem -- just as the U.N. now talks circles around itself while ignoring the situation in Iran and the Sudan. Meanwhile, al Qaida or some offshoot will continue burrowing until they accomplish their goal; another major terrorist attack on our soil. At that point, Kerry will have an explanation similar to Neville Chamberlain's: "Everything would have worked if only Hitler had kept his promises."

I am cannot sure that this interpretation of Kerry is accurate, but I am far from sure that it is not. John Kerry has been reflexively anti-war and anti-American militarism since before he went to Vietnam. It is the single most obvious and consistent fact about his public career. I could perhaps overlook this if I felt that Kerry had changed his mind about all this, but I don't think that such a case could be made. From Bai's article:

When I asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment. ''It accelerated -- '' He paused. ''I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it.''

Now of course Kerry is claiming here that 9/11 didn't change him because he was already ahead of the curve in evaluating this threat, but it is hard to get from his record or any of his public statements that I am aware of that this was in fact the case. Even if it is, there is no evidence that I know of that he was advocating a more militaristic or democracy promoting agenda. The Clinton era law enforcement approach to terror obviously didn't work, I suppose one could argue that it failed not because it was the wrong way to do it, but that it was the right way just not pursued enough. There is some justification to that probably, but there is no 'law enforcement approach' that would have deprived Al-Qaida of their secure base in Afghanistan where the training took place and the 9/11 attacks were planned. There is no law enforcement approach that will drive them from a future base in a failed state either. Mostly though what troubles me is that John Kerry doesn't seem to be strongly in favor of promoting democracy in the Middle East, which I believe is our best hope for effectively eradicating terror. Again from Bai's article:

Kerry, too, envisions a freer and more democratic Middle East. But he flatly rejects the premise of viral democracy, particularly when the virus is introduced at gunpoint. ''In this administration, the approach is that democracy is the automatic, easily embraced alternative to every ill in the region,'' he told me. Kerry disagreed. ''You can't impose it on people,'' he said. ''You have to bring them to it. You have to invite them to it. You have to nurture the process.''

I have several problems with this statement. While I agree that you can't impose democracy on people, I don't believe that you ever have to. People naturally want democracy, they want a say in how their lives are governed. It isn't rocket science to figure this out. Sometime though, you do have to impose democracy on governments. One of the downsides with the modern technology is that it makes it easier than anytime since the beginning of the enlightenment for governments to impose their will upon people and defeat rebellions, especially if they are willing to be brutal about it. Simply put, the Iraqi people were never going to be able to depose Saddam on their own. No rebellion will succeed against Kim Jung Il. This sort of regime may be vulnerable to a coup from within the power structure but a popular rebellion is simply not going to succeed in those type of countries. Even with these facts being true, I would in general be willing to go along with Kerry's 'nurturing of the process' if these regimes did not present a threat to us. If terrorism really was just a 'nuisance' problem we could afford to wait, let a slow democratization process take root (or fail to) and hope for the best. I believe however that the situation is a bit more serious than that. I believe that serious measures have to be takes to change the character of the Middle East, and while we have a little time in which to accomplish that, it is not infinite. I do not believe it is hysterical or paranoid to worry about a nuclear weapon being detonated by terrorists in New York or Washington D.C. If we follow the path set in the 90's, if we allow ourselves to believe, as we did on Sept. 10th, that we have reduced terrorism to a 'nuisance' I think the likelihood of such a catastrophe goes way up. Some of John Kerry's specific ideas about confronting terrorism are good. Many of them are already being done. I am sure that as a Senator he will be able to continue offering good advise on some specific strategies and tactics to damage the Al Qaida networks and reduce various threats. However, I doubt his ability as President to meet this global challenge with the vision and foresight needed to succeed. Again from Bai's article:

''I think we can do a better job,'' Kerry said, ''of cutting off financing, of exposing groups, of working cooperatively across the globe, of improving our intelligence capabilities nationally and internationally, of training our military and deploying them differently, of specializing in special forces and special ops, of working with allies, and most importantly -- and I mean most importantly -- of restoring America's reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us.''

His laundry list of tactics here is fine, until the end. I strongly disagree that the most important task facing us, the one thing we need to do more than anything else, is to restore our reputation as a sensitive, multi-lateral, peace at any price nation. I don't think I would even put that in my top ten list of most important things to do. I mean sure, it would be nice if everyone thought we were great. I wouldn't complain if it happened, but I am not going to lose sleep over it either. Rogue nations developing WMD, terrorists shooting school kids in the back, train stations and night clubs and hotels being blown up around the world are the sort of things that make me lose sleep. Personally I am far from sure that we aren't a little too 'sensitive' now, what with our refusal do blow up an insurgent military base just because it happens to also be a mosque. John Kerry's plan for fighting the War on Terror offers the illusion of security. That is a very dangerous situation to be in, as eventually such illusions are shattered. The last time this happened in the U.S. was 9/11. Doubtless, at some time in the future, American illusions of security will be shattered again. But if it has to happen again to deal with the same threat we are simply being fools.