Allies Uber Alles?

The presidential campaign has heated up of late despite the fact the election is almost eight months away. See this Washington Post article on the back and forth between Senator Kerry and Vice President Cheney for some juicy examples.

But since I seem to be on a Iraq theme this week, let me make a point about something that baffles me. Why does Kerry and other D's keep harping on this issue of allies? I understand they think it is a useful tool for partisan advantage - although I think its vagueness dulls the point - but I fail to see the strategic point. Here is a quote from Kerry:

If we had built a true coalition, those troops would not have to fight almost alone, and Americans would not have to bear, almost alone, all of the costs in Iraq.

What really bugs me is the assumption that Kerry could somehow bring these countries on board. But he never explains exactly how he is going to do this. I recommend that everyone go out and buy a copy of Robert Kagan's excellent Of Paradise and Power. This book clearly lays out how American and Europe have totally different worldviews when it comes to Foreign Policy. It outlines how our different histories, different cultures, and different levels of power lead us to clash when it comes to international relations.

I have yet to see a refutation of Kagan's thesis and I think any intelligent discussion of our relations with Europe need to take his ideas into account. Furthermore, it seems to me that the Democrats belief in the possibility of building a coalition that includes France and Germany is built on a false belief that the relative unity of the Cold War can continue. France and Germany were unequivocally opposed to military action in Iraq. Heck, they were working to undermine the sanctions regime that was supposedly containing Saddam. So how exactly does Kerry think he is going to convince these countries that are diametrically opposed to our policies to join us in carrying out those policies?

This is part and parcel of Kerry's rhetoric. He wants it both ways. He wants to appear tough on terrorism and a viable commander in chief and yet he is unwilling to back that up with clear commitments. He wants to attack Bush on Iraq but he can't communicate a viable alternative. At least those flat out against the war had a clear and consistent position. Kerry jumps around trying to decry the way Bush carried out the war and yet still support the result if it turns out well.

Because of this, Cheney's criticisms are dead on. Kerry's votes don't make any sense unless they come from a politician trying to straddle the fence. Cheney nails Kerry for a lack of clarity:

Cheney cited Kerry's vote against authorizing President George H.W. Bush to start the Persian Gulf War of 1991, which ended Hussein's occupation of Kuwait, but later referred to the countries that joined the United States as a "strong coalition." Kerry voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the second Iraq war, but against an $87 billion funding request for operations there and in Afghanistan. Cheney also ridiculed Kerry's statement Tuesday in West Virginia, when Kerry said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." The vice president said, "Whatever the explanation, whatever nuances he might fault us for neglecting, it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander in chief in this time of testing for our country."

The bald fact of the matter is that Kerry has no clear foreign policy ideas - other than a comittment to more allies - and he has shown a compete lack of consistency when it comes to taking action. The VP is right, we simply can't afford to have Kerry at the helm in these difficult times.