The latest edition of the Weekly Standard has a piece called “The First 100 Days” by Marc Ginsberg, who was the U.S. ambassador to Morocco under President Clinton. The piece discusses “what a Kerry foreign policy might look like.” I don’t believe that it is available online which, considering the revealing nature of the article, is too bad. As set forth by Ginsburg, a Democrat, Kerry’s foreign policy would look like ordinary mush with an unhealthy dose of Jimmy Carter style mush added. Here are a few examples:
“Those searching for an overarching Kerry foreign policy vision or doctrine would have to wait. Waging [a] ‘more effective’ struggle against Islamic extremists. . .would have to suffice.”
“More effective” would suffice. Unfortunately those searching for a cogent explanation of how the struggle would be waged more effectively will also have to wait.
“The United will need to wage a holistic struggle within a global alliance determined to preserve order and peace, marshalling additional global resources to neutralize conditions that give rise to terrorism: failed and failing states and their attendant poverty, unemployment, disease, and despair.”
“Holistic,” the ultimate mush word. Does he mean world-wide nation-building? Sound “arrogant” to me.
“A president-elect Kerry would put in place a Democratic national security team sobered by the vital necessity of reorienting American national security objectives. . .The people who would be members of this team are neither callow nor lacking in intent or conviction. . . .Most held positions in the Clinton administration.”
No comment
“The new president would outline a series of foreign policy initiatives reflecting his commitment to forge a new international alliance against terrorism. He would take the same message fairly quickly to the U.N.”
Foreign policy initiatives? Can you be more specific please? Oh, that’s right, Ill have to wait
“As profound as John Kerry insists his differences are with George Bush on Iraq, as Kerry administration would be largely wedded to the same goals as the Bush administration. . .The promised mid-course correction would nevertheless attempt to “de-Americanize’ our intervention by convening a global summit on Iraq.”
I see. We’ll “de-Americanize” the conflict by bringing in the likes of France. But what promises are we going to make to secure French intervention in Iraq?
“He believes that Muslim hostility toward the United States will be reversed only when Arabs consider the United States fully reengaged in promoting peace in the region and upholding its own moral principles in its dealings in the region.”
Now I understand how we’re going to attempt to enlist the French — by going to bat for Arafat. At least Kerry wasn’t really advocating a global test, just a Franco-Arab test. And the Arab part of the test can easily be satisfied by convincing the Arabs that we are moral. Jiimmy Carter, call your office.
“Look for Kerry to designate a new WMD nonproliferation czar to retool the national security structure to focus attention on ‘loose nukes’ and other potential sources of proliferation.”
Sandy Berger, call your office
“Expect Kerry to construct a “carrots and sticks’ approach to Iran.”
Carrots and sticks vs. nukes — that’s a match-up a liberal Democrat could love.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.