John Kerry believes it is better to sacrifice American lives for the United Nations than for the United States.
If you don’t believe me on this, perhaps you will believe a paper that endorses his candidacy – the Washington Post.
Kerry’s belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support.
To justify that nearly incredible assertion, the Post cited this quotation from Kerry made in 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia:
If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.
So, what we really have heading the Democratic Party ticket this year is not so much a candidate for president of the United States as a candidate for secretary general of the United Nations.
The essence of Kerry’s much-referenced “plan” for Iraq is clearly reflected in this passion he has for “multilateralism.” For Kerry, the very rightness and morality of the military cause seems to be based on how many international partners the U.S. can persuade to participate.
Although, with Kerry, there is always the exception that proves the rule: On North Korea, he deplores President Bush’s multilateral effort to disarm Pyongyang and prefers a bilateral approach. Go figure.
Nevertheless, Kerry’s commitment to military actions under the flag of the United Nations is one of his deepest core beliefs. It is a principle upon which he has stood for more than 30 years. It is foundational to everything else in his program.
John Kerry doesn’t believe the United States should act unilaterally in the world. Why? Most people who subscribe to this belief do so because they fear American arrogance. They believe an America that is too militarily powerful cannot be trusted.
Instead, Kerry believes we are better off trusting foreigners – foreigners to whom the American people have no accountability whatsoever.
And he’s believed that since at least 1970. Here’s what he told the Harvard Crimson back then: “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”
Note the qualifier “only.” Have you ever heard any U.S. presidential candidate make a statement of that kind in your life? Can you imagine the implications of such a belief?
Think about it. Kerry doesn’t want the United States to take any unilateral military action to defend its national interests and the security of its people. He wants the United States to take all the risks, pay all the costs, bear all the burdens in protecting itself and the rest of the free world, but only if it can do so with the acquiescence and cooperation of many other nations who have little at risk.
The United States built such a coalition in Iraq. Some 36 nations have been involved – though, admittedly, only a few are making significant sacrifices in their commitments.
But such coalitions, unfortunately, are only as strong as their weakest links – as the world witnessed with Spain’s capitulation to terrorism and the Philippines’ unconditional surrender.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Those are not allies in the cause of freedom. Those are allies in the cause of chaos and terrorism.
And so is Kerry.