Rene — John Kerry, the Enlightened Hawk
Topic(s): US Analysis | Comments Off on Rene — John Kerry, the Enlightened HawkDEMOCRATIC DEFENCE POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES
John Kerry, the Enlightened Hawk
Le Monde diplomatique
July 2004
The continuing mess in Iraq is beginning to damage George Bush’s
popularity at home, but just how different from Bush’s Republican
defence and foreign policies are those of John Kerry, who is his
Democratic challenger in this year’s presidential election?
By Michael Klare
Since the Vietnam war the Democratic party has favoured extensive
social programmes at home and vigorous peacemaking abroad, while the
Republicans have advocated a tough military posture plus limits on
domestic spending. But since 11 September 2001 there has arrived a new
breed of Democrat: an enlightened hawk who seeks to neutralise the
Bush administration’s perceived advantage in security by advocating a
more aggressive campaign against terrorism and nuclear
proliferation. Prominent among the Democratic hawks is the
presidential candidate John Kerry.
Senator Kerry first demonstrated his commitment to this muscular
approach in his presidential campaign announcement on 2 September
2003. While previous Democratic candidates might have chosen a
childcare centre or industrial plant as a backdrop, Kerry picked a
martial setting: the berth of a giant aircraft carrier. With the USS
Yorktown towering above, Kerry signalled that a tough stance on
military policy would be a distinctive feature of his candidacy: “We
will defend our national security and maintain a military that is the
strongest armed force on earth.” And if a moment came when it was
necessary to use force against terrorists, “I will not hesitate to do
so” (1).
Since then Kerry has reaffirmed these commitments and even criticised
President George Bush for being weak on defence – an unprecedented
move for a Democratic candidate. “George Bush inherited the strongest
military in the world and he has weakened it,” Kerry said. “Far too
often, troops have been going into harm’s way without the weapons and
the equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely.” Kerry
criticised Bush for failing to adopt a vigorous, comprehensive
strategy to combat terrorism: “I don’t fault George Bush for doing too
much in the war on terror: I believe he’s done too little” (2).
In the climate of nationalist one-upmanship that has characterised US
politics since 9/11, Kerry has begun to articulate a Democratic stance
on national security noticeably different from that advocated by the
Republicans, but just as combative. He has been helped by a phalanx of
defence intellectuals, many of them associated with the Clinton
administration, who have hammered out a security doctrine and promoted
it in conferences, articles and the media. Key figures include
President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Samuel (Sandy)
Berger; former secretary of defence William Perry; a former assistant
secretary of defence and professor at the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University, Ashton Carter; and a former assistant secretary
of defence in the Reagan administration, now a senior fellow at the
Centre for American Progress (a Democratic thinktank), Lawrence Korb.
The effort to develop this stance began soon after the 2002 mid-term
elections in which the Democrats lost several crucial seats in the
Senate and the House of Representatives. A number of prominent
Democrats, including Clinton, faulted the party leadership for
sticking to its traditional dovelike outlook at a time of national
concern over terrorism.
“We were missing in action on national security,” Clinton told the
Democratic Leadership Council, an organisation of moderate Democrats
that helped elect him in 1992. “When people are feeling insecure,
they’d rather have someone who is strong and wrong rather than someone
who is weak and right . . . If the party is to prevail in 2004 we have
to have a clear and strong national security stand” (3). Clinton and
others associated with his administration prodded centrist Democrats
until they began to construct a national security posture that could
be adopted by the 2004 presidential candidate.
With the primaries now over, Kerry has been even more assertive on
national security affairs. In April, after an upsurge of fighting in
Iraq, he denounced the administration’s conduct of the war, saying
that Bush’s failure to internationalise the conflict had put US
soldiers in extreme danger. “Our troops today are paying the price for
a flawed policy,” he said on radio. “Because of the go-it-alone policy
in Iraq, our troops have borne 90% of the risks and casualties.”
To reduce pressure on US soldiers and speed the reconstruction of
Iraq, Kerry proposes the transfer of authority to a United Nations
mission and the assumption of peacekeeping duties by a Nato-led
multinational force. `I served and was proud of my service’
Kerry has stood his ground despite repeated attacks by Republicans on
his capacity to serve as commander-in-chief at a time of great
danger. Typical of these are Vice-President Richard Cheney’s remarks
in April: “The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample grounds
to doubt the judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital
issues of national security.” In response Kerry has highlighted his
service in Vietnam and questioned the sincerity of Repub licans,
including Bush and Cheney, who found ways to escape such service. “I
did fight in Vietnam, and I was wounded there, and I served there and
was very proud of my service. To have these people, all of whom made a
different choice, attack me for it is obviously disturbing.”
The Republicans are expected to spend tens of millions of dollars on
television advertising to sow doubts about Kerry’s commitment to
security, while the Democrats will spend similar amounts extolling his
military record. This will distinguish the 2004 campaign from any
other.
To prepare for this contest, the Democrats have devised a
comprehensive programme for defence and foreign policy. Their plan is
unique and distinct from its opposite, the security policy of the Bush
administration. Although it does have certain resemblances to the
Republican position, the Democratic strategy has several major
differences. The Bush doctrine stresses the pre-emptive, unilateral
use of force by the US to overpower any perceived threat to national
security. The White House argues that the need to employ force in this
manner is essential to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction
by terrorist organisations and rogue states that cannot be dissuaded
from such action by traditional diplomacy and deterrence. This policy
holds that the US is justified in taking pre-emptive action against a
potential threat whether or not allies of the US agree with
Washington’s assessment of the magnitude of the danger or are willing
to help overcome it.
The Republicans view the Bush doctrine as a natural evolution of US
defence policy, incorporating features developed in response to
changes in global threats. The Democrats view it as a repudiation of
traditional policy, entailing the abandonment of the long-standing
reliance of the US on deterrence and cooperation with key allies.
The Bush approach represents “a radical shift in the nature of US
foreign policy”, Berger said at a conference of the Centre for
American Progress 28-29 October 2003 (4). “In a sense [Bush]
fundamentally rejected the doctrine of deterrence that had been the
cornerstone of national security for the last 50 years.” The Bush
emphasis on unilateralism “is fundamentally antithetical to the notion
of enduring alliances” that helped produce common threat perceptions
and led to joint action throughout the cold war. In the Democratic
view, the best way to enhance US security is to rebuild ties with
long-term allies and involve them closely in critical endeavours such
as the war on terror and the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Once president,” Kerry told the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on
3 December 2003, “I will replace the Bush years of isolation with a
new era of alliances – because, while the cold war has ended, our need
for allies to confront and overcome a different array of dangers and
challenges is as great or greater than before” (5). `Enlightened
nationalism’
The term “enlightened nationalism”, proposed by Senator Joe Biden in
an address to fellow Demo crats on 28 October, sums up the policy
(6). It means the pursuit of US interests through a com bination of
military brawn and international cooperation. Like the Bush doctrine,
it seeks to eliminate the threat of rogue states and terrorist groups;
but it aims to do so by marshalling the collective strength of the
world community rather than that of the US alone. This means
bolstering global capa city to locate and destroy hidden terrorist
cells, impeding the flow of nuclear weapons technology to rogue
states, and reconstructing war-damaged states. The US would continue
to provide much of the military muscle and resources to achieve these
objectives, in collaboration with the international community.
The plan diverges from that of the Republicans. But it also endorses
many of the administration’s hard-line policies and in some cases is
prepared to go further. “A Democratic administration will need to
reaffirm the US willingness to use military force, alone if necessary,
in defence of its vital interests,” says Berger. It might give
diplomacy more time to achieve a peaceful solution than the
Republicans, but it would not hesitate to use force if circumstances
required it. Kerry has been blunt about this: “As president, I will
not cede our secur ity to any nation or institution. And adversaries
will have no doubt of my resolve to use force if necessary.”
Kerry and his supporters call for substantial improvements in US
fighting capabilities. They want improvements in the combat strength
of the army and marine corps – services that bear the heaviest burden
of ground combat, peacekeeping operations and post-conflict
stabilisation. To enhance the Pentagon’s capacities, the Democrats
seek to establish two army divisions – adding 40,000 active-duty
combat soldiers – and procure more basic infantry equipment, including
body armour, troop carriers and combat helicopters. Democrats thus
make clear their emphasis on improved ground-combat capabilities (as
used to fight guerrillas and maintain stability in Afghanistan, Iraq
and Kosovo) rather than the sophisticated, hi-tech weapons approved by
the Bush administration. “The debate over military transformation must
go far beyond battlefield technology,” Korb wrote in January 2004
(7). “It must focus on the people who fight our battles. We need a
military that is large and well-equipped enough to carry out multiple
tasks in many theatres across the globe.”
The Democrats are prepared to spend more money on forces and weaponry,
as much as $6bn a year, according to figures supplied by Korb for the
Centre for American Progress. To obtain funds without an overall
increase in defence spending, they would scale back missile defence
and cancel costly weapons programmes, such as the F/A-22 fighter and
Virginia-class submarine.
Bush intends to run for re-election as the candidate best positioned
to succeed in the war against terrorism, but the Democrats contend
that he has faltered in this critical struggle. Their indictment of
his strategy is based on two points: that by focusing so heavily on
Iraq since 2001, he has diverted attention and resources from the more
important task of destroying al-Qaida; and that by alienating the
international community on many issues, he has jeopardised the support
the US needs to identify, locate and eliminate hidden terrorist cells.
The assertion that the administration’s obsession with Iraq diverted
attention from al-Qaida was reinforced by the testimony of former
White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke. In a dramatic
appearance on 24 March before the commission investigating the attacks
on 11 September 2001, he testified that Bush and his closest
associates mostly ignored the terror threat before the attacks and in
the days after sought to place the blame on Saddam Hussein despite a
lack of any evidence linking him to the plot. Failure to focus on
al-Qaida
By focusing so heavily on Iraq, the Democrats argue, Bush did not
devote the time and resources needed to succeed in the war against
al-Qaida. As evidence, Kerry and others point to Bush’s failure to
find and capture Osama bin Laden. “We had him in our grasp two years
ago at Tora Bora [in Afghanistan] but George Bush held US forces back
and instead called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to
finish the job,” Kerry claimed on 27 February. In this and other ways
Bush has “weakened the war on terrorism” (8).
The Bush administration has alienated foreign governments. “President
Bush says that the cooperation of other nations, particularly our
allies, is critical to our war on terrorism,” Kerry told the CFR on 3
December. “And he’s right. Yet his administration consistently runs
roughshod over the interests of those nations on a broad range of
issues, from climate control to the International Criminal Court” –
eroding their support for US efforts to combat terrorism. “We must
work with the international community to define a global strategy that
is collective and not imperial” (9).
By shifting tactics and priorities the US can be more effective in the
anti-terror campaign. This means devoting more national resources –
especially specialised military and intelligence – to the task, and
rebuilding US ties with major allies. “Although we still need the
capacity to fight conventional wars,” says Berger, “we now must seek
out and destroy enemies that hide in the shadows, often among
civilians” – operations best performed by specially trained military
and intelligence officers. “At heart, this effort will be an
intelligence challenge.”
While some traditional Democrats, such as Representative Dennis
Kucinich of Ohio, follow Ralph Nader’s line and favour a rapid US
troop pull-out from Iraq, Kerry believes that US forces must remain
there. Kerry is prepared to deploy additional US troops in Iraq if
this will help bring stability. “We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply
can’t allow it to become a failed state . . . a breeding ground for
anti-American terrorism” (10). Kerry insists that the US presence in
Iraq should be placed under UN jurisdiction and that Nato must assume
responsibility for security.
The Democrats view Afghanistan in the same way. Given the risk that
continued violence and disorder there will facilitate the return of
the Taliban and the remnants of al-Qaida, they call for a strong and
durable US military presence. “What Democrats must offer is a sense of
realism,” explains Berger. “When the US goes to war it had better be
prepared to stay where it has fought, to fix what it has broken . . .
We must demonstrate staying power, not just firepower” (11). But here,
too, the Democrats want to internationalise the job and bring in more
outside help, especially from Europe. “Now that Nato has finally
agreed to lead an expanded peacekeeping mission in Afghani stan,”
Berger said, “there is a desperate need for European forces to augment
the existing US military presence in the country.”
In keeping with their desire for an enlightened foreign policy, the
Democrats call for vigorous efforts to address the causes of terrorism
and counter the ideological appeal of extremist movements. As
suggested by Kerry in February, the US may win one battle after
another, “but nothing else will matter unless we win the war of
ideas”, which means providing alternatives to the anti-US media in
much of the Islamic world and establishing moderate, western-style
educational opportunities for Muslim youth.
“We must embark on a major initiative to bridge the divide between
Islam and the rest of the world,” Kerry told the CFR: he believes that
is the only way extremists who espouse terrorism can be discredited
among the masses of the Middle East. The war of ideas needs action
too
The Democrats say the war of ideas must be accompanied by steps to
alleviate the poverty and backwardness that spur many in the
developing world to join extremist organisations. “Our secur ity is
ultimately threatened when half the world’s population lives on less
than $2 a day,” a former assistant secretary of state, Susan Rice,
said in October 2003 (12). “So out of self-interest if nothing else,
we ought to view it as our fight, not just the developing world’s, to
close the gaps between rich and poor.”
Success requires demonstrable progress toward a peaceful resolution of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In articulating his position on
this, Kerry begins with an unequivocal expression of his support for
Israel: “America’s longstanding commitment to Israel’s independence
and survival must never waver.” But he also argues that Israel must
accept the eventual formation of a Palestinian state and negotiate to
make that happen. Kerry supports the road map to peace devised by the
quartet of the US, UN, European Union and Russia. He has proposed
providing US aid and training for Palestinian security forces when and
if they demonstrate their determination to suppress terrorist groups
in the West Bank and Gaza.
The Democrats also insist that they have a better strategy for curbing
the proliferation of WMD than the Republicans. They argue that the
military approach favoured by the Bush administration is flawed: it
arouses resentment against the US unilateral use of force and
undermines support for cooperative non-proliferation efforts; it
encour-ages potential adversaries to accelerate acquisition of WMD so
as to deter possible attacks by the US. The Democrats would shift the
emphasis to collect ive action to curb the international trade in WMD
materials, equipment and know-how.
“A Democratic administration should use every tool at its disposal to
prevent WMD threats from arising before force becomes the only
option,” Berger insists. “The most obvious early measure Washington
can take to keep deadly weapons materials from falling into the hands
of terrorists or rogue states is to secure them at source.” This means
more funds for the disposal of surplus WMD stockpiles in the former
Soviet Union and greater security for those materials not destroyed,
an effort known in the US as cooperative threat reduction or the
Nunn-Lugar programme after the senators, one Republican and the other
Democrat, who proposed it.
In another expression of their more hawkish stance on proliferation,
the Democrats have called for more efforts to force North Korea to
halt its nuclear weapons programme and dismantle its existing WMD
arsenals. Berger has gone so far as to berate the White House for
being insufficiently vigorous in efforts to compel the North Koreans
to disarm. Despite evidence that North Korea is the only country with
the capacity and inclination to provide nuclear munitions to
terrorists, Berger claimed, the administration “reacted with
inexplicable complacency as North Korea has crossed line after line on
its way to becoming the world’s first nuclear Wal-Mart”. Berger would
offer North Korea economic and political incentives to abandon nuclear
ambitions and then, if it refuses, call on other nations to join the
US in using coercion to achieve this aim.
As part of enlightened nationalism, the Demo crats would reduce US
dependence on imported oil to reduce the risk of future US military
involvement in the Middle East. Kerry said: “We will embark on a
historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the
future, to make this country energy-independent of Mideast oil within
10 years so our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die
for it.”
This is an ambitious proposal, certain to provoke opposition from
Democratic constituencies in Michigan and other states that rely on
vehicle manufacture for many well-paying blue-collar jobs. There are
serious doubts whether Congress would ever approve an
alternative-energy prog-ramme this big, if President Jimmy Carter’s
experience in 1977 is anything to go by. Increased US energy
independence would contribute to another Kerry objective: diminished
US subservience to the Saudi royal family. As the Democrats see it,
influential Republicans, especially those surroun-ding the Bush
dynasty, maintain close political and economic ties with Saudi leaders
and so are reluctant to punish them for failing to cut off funds to
Islamic charities linked to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.
“The Saudi government now claims to be cracking down on terrorist
financing,” Kerry told the CFR, “but their actions have not matched
their words.” US ability to pressure Riyadh to increase efforts will
be limited, he argued, as long as the US remains dependent on Saudi
oil and investment funding. “The truth is we have deep, and for the
moment inescapable ties, corporate and energy dependence, that
complicate our relationship with Saudi Arabia. And that is why we must
adopt a new energy policy for America.”
Michael Klare is professor of peace and world security studies at
Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, and author of ‘Blood and
Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Petroleum
Dependency’ (August 2004)
NOTES
(1) John Kerry, announcement speech, Patriot’s Point, South Carolina,
2 September 2003.
(2) Kerry, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), 27 February
2004,
(3) New York Times, 4 December 2002.
(4) Conference on New American Strategies for Security and Peace,
Washington, 28-29 October 2003.
(5) Kerry, address to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), New
York, 3 December 2003.
(6) Conference on New American Strategies, see above.
(7) Lawrence Korb, “Six Steps to a Safer America”, Center for American
Progress, 29 January 2004.
(8) Kerry at UCLA, February 27, 2004.
(9) Address to the CFR. On 23 June 2004, having failed to secure
enough votes, the US dropped a UN resolution to allow US troops on
peacekeeping missions immunity from prosecution by the International
Criminal Court (whose founding treaty the US has not ratified) for a
third year.
(10) “A strategy to win the peace in Iraq”,
(11) Samuel Berger, “Foreign Policy for a Democratic President,”
Foreign Affairs, New York, May/June 2004.
(12) Conference on New American Strategies, see above.
Original text in English
http://mondediplo.com/2004/07/02kerry