The war in Iraq and other divisive policies have left us less secure by overextending our troops and damaging our traditional alliances.
Published October 13, 2004
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have tried to frighten American voters throughout this campaign by asserting that Democratic challenger John Kerry is unfit to protect our national security. In truth, the Bush administration has left our country less secure than it was four years ago through policies that have weakened our defenses, eroded our government's moral authority and diverted resources from the task of wiping out the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
The war in Iraq has been especially costly in all those respects. It has overburdened our military forces, divided our traditional security alliances and damaged our government's credibility. This war has been much more costly, in blood and treasure, than the White House predicted. American taxpayers are bearing more than 90 percent of the cost of the war, and American soldiers have suffered more than 90 percent of the non-Iraqi casualties. With no honorable end in sight, those costs already have compromised our military's ability to fulfill its broader missions.
Our burden in Iraq is magnified by this administration's isolation from many governments in Europe, the Islamic world and elsewhere that were full partners in the coalition that won the Persian Gulf War. And because the White House tried to justify this war on the basis of alleged threats that proved to be wildly exaggerated or false, it may have more difficulty being taken seriously when it tries to marshal collective action in response to future threats.
While the president implausibly keeps insisting the war in Iraq is going well, John Kerry has been more realistic. "It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger," he said in a Sept. 20 national security address. "But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again."
Kerry does not advocate a panicky withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, he proposes to speed the training of Iraqi security forces, create the conditions necessary for credible national elections and make a renewed push for more support from the international community. While we doubt that a Kerry administration could persuade other governments to provide meaningful military help in Iraq under current conditions, a new president surely would have a better chance of repairing the alliances the Bush administration has undercut.
Unlike the president, Kerry also is a sincere advocate for reform of our intelligence and counterterrorism operations, and he speaks knowledgeably of the need to work with our NATO allies and other traditional friends to re-establish a sense of collective security based on shared values.
Despite distorted criticism from the Bush campaign, Kerry wouldn't seek a permission slip from the world before acting to protect the United States. But even the world's uncontested superpower is vulnerable without the military, economic and diplomatic help of other governments. Al-Qaida and other shadowy terrorist groups can't be neutralized without thorough international cooperation in intelligence-gathering, immigration control and other security measures. We also need the world's help in deterring Iran and North Korea, which have accelerated their nuclear weapons programs since being labeled part of the "axis of evil" by President Bush.
We do not question the sincerity of the president's decisions regarding the war in Iraq or other issues affecting our national security. Kerry supporters' suggestions that the president sent our troops to war for selfish motives are as offensive as the Bush campaign's insinuations that a Kerry victory would somehow be a victory for terrorism.
However, we do question the president's priorities. In fact, one of Kerry's strongest arguments is that the war in Iraq has diverted resources that should have been devoted to finishing the job of stabilizing Afghanistan and tracking down Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders. We also question the simplistic logic and ideological assumptions that caused this administration to be dangerously unprepared for the chaos and insurgency that confronted our troops in Iraq. And we question the inflexibility that has left this administration isolated from many traditional allies when it most needs the cooperation of other governments in battling terrorism, nuclear proliferation and other modern threats.
Kerry can talk as tough as Bush on terrorism. "The terrorists are beyond reason," he said. "We must destroy them." But Kerry says our security depends on "the totality of America's strength: Strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values."
If that's nuance, President Bush ought to find himself some.
This is the last of several editorials comparing President Bush and John Kerry, his Democratic challenger, on some of the important issues in this presidential election.
