Cri du coeur: Kerry's disastrous foreign policy alternative

Election talk. Kerry's true agenda will not be know unless he gets elected. Right now he is trying to be tough to the tough, tender to the tender, just like Bush.

Would it not be better for Bush to be honest, also?

I brought an article to a rather frightening story of recent events in Uzbekistan (sp), and the resulting wavery US/Uzbek relationship, with the possible instabilty/vaccuum leaving a stronghold for Islamic militants.

I have seen several pundits discussing Kerry's need to distinguish himself from Bush. They reasoned he wasn't moving forward in the polls, because there was no real distinction between he and Bush on foreign policy. This may be your motive behind the seeming bi-polar d/o.

Thinking of Bush and Kerry as two men, devoid of political affiliation--it appears that the challenger is trying to carve out his own territory--while not really considering the application of the policy.

This part really bothers me..."On Egypt, Kerry said that he would not tie foreign aid to greater openness and reform. "I would first want to link it to the warmth of the relationship with Israel and the effort to secure general stability in Middle East," he said. "You have to put your priorities first."
Egypt does have a decent,but not great,relationship with Israel,and to say that Egypt must help "secure general stabiity" is a huge mistake.
By saying that,Kerry is saying Egypt is free to do whatever they want to its own citizens,as long as they keep it in their own yard.That doest make any sense,and will be a HUGE mistake.

"There aren't that many polarizing issues among the Bush voters. Bush reminds me of pizza: variations on a theme. Someone who will eat one kind of frozen pizza will eat most other kinds."

Shopping for a President: II

To locate Mr. Kerry in Dr. Moskowitz's supermarket, you have to leave the frozen-foods aisle.

"When you analyze the Kerry voters, you see something like the flavor polarization you find in pickle consumers," Dr. Moskowitz explained. "Some people like high-impact sour and garlic pickles; others hate them and like a pickle with a mild crunch. You can't please people by giving everyone a middle-of-the-road pickle."

Dr. Moskowitz found that Mr. Kerry's overall support was about equal to Mr. Bush's, but that the voters who could be swayed to vote Democratic fall into three radically disparate groups.

Some are Improvement Seekers, whose priorities are education reform and new energy policies. Others are Idealists, who can be wooed with promises to fight discrimination against women and minorities, improve health care, protect abortion rights and defend workers against corporations.

And then there are the Issue Averse, who are so strongly predisposed to vote for Mr. Kerry that none of his campaign promises will strengthen their loyalty. In fact, specifics are liable to drive them away, because they are turned off by some promises, like protecting abortion rights, fighting discrimination and reforming education.

"This group isn't so much pro-Kerry as anti-Bush," Dr. Moskowitz said. "The more Kerry promises the other groups, the more chance he has of offending the Issue Averse voters. It's a tough challenge for him to figure out a coherent strategy that straddles the needs of very different people. Bush has to harness a group of dogs basically pulling in the same direction. Kerry's got to harness a group of cats."

"democracy cannot be imposed by military force is also wrong"

Additionally, he aims to draw the US back together with Europe and the UN. He may see his policy as a 'fresh beginning' in diplomatic circles.

I will carry that message to the world myself in my first hundred days in office. I will go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations. I will make it clear that when the Secretary of State speaks, he or she speaks for America - not for the losing cause of internationalism inside an Administration obsessed with its own hubris and swagger.

An international effort in Iraq is indispensable, but only the start of the new era of alliances in which the United States must lead and re-engage the world.

The war on terrorism is not just an American cause; it is a global conflict against a hidden and deadly enemy with many faces in many places. No matter how much power we have, we cannot prevail single-handedly. We must work with the international community to define a global strategy that is inclusive not exclusive, collective and not imperial.

As President, I will work aggressively to rebuild the relationships frayed and shredded by the Bush Administration, particularly with our NATO allies. I will immediately convene a summit with European and world leaders to discuss a common anti-terrorism agenda, including a collective security framework and a long-term strategy to build bridges to the Islamic world.

I will treat the United Nations as a full partner - not only in the war on terror, but in combating other common enemies like AIDS and global poverty. We must seek not only to renew the mandate of the UN, but to reform its operations and revitalize its capacity. If I am President, the United Nations will be seen as the asset it is, not a liability to a safer America.

All this and more - including economic and social progress in the poorest countries so we can drain the swamps where terrorists breed - cannot be achieved if the United States goes it alone, alienates the world, and simply seeks to impose its will. The new era of alliances I propose will take different forms to deal with different and urgent challenges. But the overriding imperative is the same - to replace unilateral action with collective security. So far, the failure to do so means that we are less safe today than we were three years ago.

In the first days of a Kerry Administration, I will appoint a Presidential Ambassador to the Peace Process who will report directly to me and the Secretary of State - and who will work day-to-day to move that process forward. There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans who I would consider appointing, including: President Carter, former Secretary of State James Baker, or, as I suggested almost two years ago, President Clinton.

Over the longer term, to prevail in the war on terror we must build new bridges to the Islamic world. In recent years, our capacity to communicate and persuade has constricted even as the need has mounted because our diplomatic presence abroad has been squeezed by tight budgets and our diplomats have been forced to withdraw behind concrete barriers in the face of terrorist threats. Our annual budget for international affairs - what we spend on the war of ideas - is a fraction of what we spend to prepare for war on the battlefield. Yet, as we have learned through painful experience, we cannot afford to win one war and lose the other.

As President, I will fight for the funding to expand our diplomatic presence - and I will direct America's representatives overseas to reach out to populations, not just governments - to religious and cultural leaders and to a new generation growing up in this age of mass communication. We invented it; we should be using it. And this kind of public diplomacy cannot be an afterthought; it must be at the core of our efforts. We must speak and we must listen. I will also appoint a Presidential Envoy for the Islamic world who will seek to strengthen moderate Islam and find new ways to isolate the terrorists - and who will make the case for progress, mutual respect - and yes, our conviction that Israel and the Arab world can and should live together in a secure and lasting peace.