A Hard Sell

by Robert J. Romano

May 2nd, 2004

Sometimes it's hard to pin down exactly what the Democratic party's position on the war on terror is, what they think about the war's theatre in Iraq, and exactly what their presumptive nominee for the presidency, Senator John Kerry, would do differently to effectively win the war.  Can the Senator take a strong position on winning the war and simultaneously court the votes of those whom do not support what they view as "Bush's war"? When the votes in October 2002 were cast in Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq to remove Hussein's regime, the Democratic party's votes were effectively split with 81 Democratic representatives for and 126 against in the House, and 29 Democratic senators for and 21 against in the Senate, despite Senator Tom Daschle's call for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."  Can the party which was ambivalent to see Hussein out of power be trusted to stay with Iraq and help the people there to build a democracy? Handing over power to the Iraqi people will officially take place on June 30th, and yet we know that American and coalition forces will remain to aid the Iraqi people themselves in securing their homeland.  

        The sharp divide in political support over the war's expansion into Iraq was mostly within the Democratic party itself, as there were altogether 7 Republicans (1 senator and 6 house members) whom did not support the war resolution when it was passed.  The resolution passed the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23.  As the liberation of Iraq moves into its second year, one of the major questions facing the Democratic nominee for president is, "Which half of the party to speak for?" 

        Senator Kerry appears to want both sides of the issue precisely because of the split in his party.  While he did vote for the resolution authorizing force against Hussein's Iraq, he voted against measures to fund the war and reconstruction in both Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, probably in a move to wrest front-runner status from Governor Howard Dean.  Now that the nomination is in-hand, will the Senator now move to vote for such funds in 2004? If the Senator wishes to speak for the majority of Americans who supported expanding the war on terror into Iraq, will he then attempt to persuade his own party of the import of winning the war on terror, and pursuing peace as a long-term policy goal? 

        What is Senator Kerry's position on states that sponsor terrorism and develop weapons of mass destruction? On February 27th, he made a speech outlining his proposed policies to win the war on terrorism.   Citing countries in the Axis of Evil, he stated, "North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists." Senator Kerry apparently agrees that these two states are threats, and presumably he would do even more than is presently being done to disarm them.  Would he be able to count on support from his own party towards that end? "[B]ecause finding and defeating terrorist groups is a long-term effort, we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.  I propose to appoint a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons.  We must develop common standards to make sure dangerous materials and armaments are tracked, accounted for, and secured.  Today, parts of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market." 

        Senator Kerry apparently also agrees that WMD must not fall into the hands of terrorists.  But does he support a strategy of possible preemption geared towards removing that sort of threat as it emerges? In a speech on January 23rd, 2003, Kerry criticized the President's strategy of leaving the option of preemption open.  "This Administration's approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is strong on rhetoric, but short on execution. It relies primarily and unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can be defeated if they are found, but will not be deterred by our military might." In fact, military force is the last resort in all cases, and the United States does have an overall strategy on the transnational danger of WMD.  Since the time of that speech, the United States, under the leadership of President Bush, has demonstrated a long-term commitment with the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and is far more robust than the Senator suggested about U.S. policy, and is more far-reaching than what the Senator himself proposed.  

        In a speech made on May 31st, 2003, in Poland, the President announced PSI, where he stated, "The greatest threat to peace is the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. And we must work together to stop proliferation. The countries of the G8 committed last year to aiding Russia and others in securing and eliminating deadly weapons that remain from the Soviet era. I welcome Poland's decision to join this effort... And I call on America's G8 partners to follow through on their financial commitments so that we can stop proliferation at one of its sources. When weapons of mass destruction or their components are in transit, we must have the means and authority to seize them. So today I announce a new effort to fight proliferation called the Proliferation Security Initiative. The United States and a number of our close allies, including Poland, have begun working on new agreements to search planes and ships carrying suspect cargo and to seize illegal weapons or missile technologies. Over time, we will extend this partnership as broadly as possible to keep the world's most destructive weapons away from our shores and out of the hands of our common enemies... In the last 20 months, the world has seen the determination of my country and many others to fight terror. Yet, armed force is always the last resort." The President also spoke more recently on PSI in a speech made on February 11th, 2004, when he also touted accomplishments made by the United States to combat proliferation in both Libya and in breaking up the A.Q Khan network.

        In comparison, while Senator Kerry may wish to state that the President has not done enough to win the war on terror, can he simultaneously create the impression that we have done too much, such as in liberating Iraq from the grip of terror brought about by Hussein's regime? Can he articulate a strong message for national and homeland security and also court the votes of Democrats that did not support the liberation of Iraq? If the impression for voters is that a vote against President Bush is a vote against the war in general, then Senator Kerry has problems, namely, that he still needs to articulate his message.  He supports the war on terror, but is that the impression he leaves with the electorate? Does Senator Kerry speak for his party? It appears that the Senator's own message is being clouded by the interests of his own base, and therefore that makes the decision of changing horses midstream a hard sell.