Why Bush is the Best Choice to Fight the War on Terror
The following op-ed appeared in The Seattle Times (original link here).
October 21, 2004
Why Bush is the Best Choice to Fight the War on Terror
By James J. Na
Special to The Times
I do not fit the media-pushed stereotype of a Bush-supporter — that of a Bible-thumping, Anglo-Saxon male Southerner. I am Asian. I grew up largely in congested urban areas of Seoul and New York City, and now live in Seattle. I do not even attend church.
Nevertheless, I am supporting President Bush's re-election on Nov. 2.
The overriding concern for me this election is the war on terror — specifically, the war on Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and their anti-Western allies. This war, in my view, also includes the struggle for a free Iraq. On this crucial issue of war, I am convinced — more than ever — that the president offers a better choice than Sen. John Kerry.
I can, of course, present a series of policy contrasts between Bush and Kerry on a range of foreign-affairs topics, not just on the war. Whereas Bush seeks to sustain the pressure on North Korea with regional powers Russia, China, Japan and South Korea, for example, Kerry wants the United States to negotiate directly with North Korea on its nuclear activities. Kerry's proposal is something that Japan, America's most important ally in Asia, adamantly opposes, because it amounts to a dramatic concession to North Korea without anything tangible in return.
What is more important than specific policy differences, however, is the issue of personal conviction and political character. After all, the war against terrorists and insurgents is not about numbers or equipment. More than anything else, it is a contest of wills.
What many of my fellow Americans seem to forget is that these terrorists, whether operating in Iraq or elsewhere, cannot defeat the United States the way, for example, the Allies systematically incapacitated the Germans' ability to wage war during World War II by destroying armies, obliterating factories and even bombing population centers.
No, the only way the terrorists can defeat the United States is by convincing us that we are defeated — by creating a perception of calamity in our minds that does not exist in reality.
In a war like this, waged with fear on one side and with freedom on the other, the most crucial trait for the leader of the free world is steadfastness — the ability to withstand temporary fluctuations in military situations and popular opinion to ensure long-term success.
In this regard, Bush has demonstrated the necessary character of perseverance and political courage. He went as far as to state, "So be it," even if the war were to cost him the second term. Bush has demonstrated clearly that he views the eventual victory in the war to be more important than his own political future.
How does Kerry fare on this account? Kerry has shifted his position on the war based on changing popular and editorial sentiments, calling it, at various times, necessary, unnecessary, what needed to be done and a colossal mistake. Even now, as he calls Iraq "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," he claims, somehow, that he will be able to attract a recalcitrant France and Germany to come to our aid.
A president so afflicted with self-doubt and prevarication cannot win the war on terror. Instead of strengthening the conviction of Americans to persevere, such a president will fall victim to the shifting sentiments that inevitably occur with temporary reverses in war. A president who slavishly follows such momentary lapses of popular resolve creates a situation ideally suited for our adversary, who operates in the realm of fear and terror.
In 216 B.C., a great terror struck the Roman world. In a single battle of Cannae, not far from Rome, Hannibal and the Carthaginians annihilated the larger Roman forces. Over 40,000 Roman soldiers perished. It was the greatest defeat in Roman history. The city of Rome was panic-stricken. The people rioted in the streets and politicians called for immediate peace negotiations with Hannibal, who was expected at the gates of Rome any moment. Many thought of fleeing the city.
Yet, steadier Roman leaders prevailed; they rallied the people and steeled them for a grim war and went on to vanquish their mortal foe in the end.
We are now likewise at our crossroads. Will we select someone as our president who is more likely to reflect and magnify transitory popular panic, or someone who has demonstrated that he will willingly sacrifice his popularity for our victory in war?
I do not agree with Bush on everything, but because I know the choice is crystal clear on this issue of life and death, my vote is for him.
October 21, 2004
Why Bush is the Best Choice to Fight the War on Terror
By James J. Na
Special to The Times
I do not fit the media-pushed stereotype of a Bush-supporter — that of a Bible-thumping, Anglo-Saxon male Southerner. I am Asian. I grew up largely in congested urban areas of Seoul and New York City, and now live in Seattle. I do not even attend church.
Nevertheless, I am supporting President Bush's re-election on Nov. 2.
The overriding concern for me this election is the war on terror — specifically, the war on Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and their anti-Western allies. This war, in my view, also includes the struggle for a free Iraq. On this crucial issue of war, I am convinced — more than ever — that the president offers a better choice than Sen. John Kerry.
I can, of course, present a series of policy contrasts between Bush and Kerry on a range of foreign-affairs topics, not just on the war. Whereas Bush seeks to sustain the pressure on North Korea with regional powers Russia, China, Japan and South Korea, for example, Kerry wants the United States to negotiate directly with North Korea on its nuclear activities. Kerry's proposal is something that Japan, America's most important ally in Asia, adamantly opposes, because it amounts to a dramatic concession to North Korea without anything tangible in return.
What is more important than specific policy differences, however, is the issue of personal conviction and political character. After all, the war against terrorists and insurgents is not about numbers or equipment. More than anything else, it is a contest of wills.
What many of my fellow Americans seem to forget is that these terrorists, whether operating in Iraq or elsewhere, cannot defeat the United States the way, for example, the Allies systematically incapacitated the Germans' ability to wage war during World War II by destroying armies, obliterating factories and even bombing population centers.
No, the only way the terrorists can defeat the United States is by convincing us that we are defeated — by creating a perception of calamity in our minds that does not exist in reality.
In a war like this, waged with fear on one side and with freedom on the other, the most crucial trait for the leader of the free world is steadfastness — the ability to withstand temporary fluctuations in military situations and popular opinion to ensure long-term success.
In this regard, Bush has demonstrated the necessary character of perseverance and political courage. He went as far as to state, "So be it," even if the war were to cost him the second term. Bush has demonstrated clearly that he views the eventual victory in the war to be more important than his own political future.
How does Kerry fare on this account? Kerry has shifted his position on the war based on changing popular and editorial sentiments, calling it, at various times, necessary, unnecessary, what needed to be done and a colossal mistake. Even now, as he calls Iraq "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," he claims, somehow, that he will be able to attract a recalcitrant France and Germany to come to our aid.
A president so afflicted with self-doubt and prevarication cannot win the war on terror. Instead of strengthening the conviction of Americans to persevere, such a president will fall victim to the shifting sentiments that inevitably occur with temporary reverses in war. A president who slavishly follows such momentary lapses of popular resolve creates a situation ideally suited for our adversary, who operates in the realm of fear and terror.
In 216 B.C., a great terror struck the Roman world. In a single battle of Cannae, not far from Rome, Hannibal and the Carthaginians annihilated the larger Roman forces. Over 40,000 Roman soldiers perished. It was the greatest defeat in Roman history. The city of Rome was panic-stricken. The people rioted in the streets and politicians called for immediate peace negotiations with Hannibal, who was expected at the gates of Rome any moment. Many thought of fleeing the city.
Yet, steadier Roman leaders prevailed; they rallied the people and steeled them for a grim war and went on to vanquish their mortal foe in the end.
We are now likewise at our crossroads. Will we select someone as our president who is more likely to reflect and magnify transitory popular panic, or someone who has demonstrated that he will willingly sacrifice his popularity for our victory in war?
I do not agree with Bush on everything, but because I know the choice is crystal clear on this issue of life and death, my vote is for him.
| Permalink | 
There is no doubt that Bush deserves to win re-election. His courage in forcing a final accounting with Saddam Hussein's repeated evasions of UN resolutions to disarm; his bold invocation of a right to preempt dangers before they become inevitable; his inspiring call to promote democracy rather than stability in the Middle East; and, most of all, his recognition that we are faced with a war against terrorism, and not simply a law enforcement problem, all recommend him to history as well as his countrymen as a visionary leader.
I have serious doubts, however, about the president's capacities as Commander-in-Chief. To start with, he is probably the worst communicator we have ever had in the executive office, a serious deficiency in mobilizing the nation for war. He is also a terrible manager, still unable to get the Department of State and the Department of Defense on the same page of the hymnal. Finally, and most ominously, his repeated statements that America will stay the course in Iraq have still not convinced enough people either inside or outside of Iraq that this is, in fact, what he will do.
If the Democrats were to nominate a man who had to be strapped into his chair to keep him from leaping at the throat of the nearest Islamist, I would be tempted to vote for him. But clearly President Bush's current rival, the Master of Nuance, is not such a man. The President, at least, is willing to fight. And for me, for now, that is enough.
Posted by
Tom Rekdal |
24/10/04 18:43