Bellum

What would Kerry do in the event of conflicting intelligence about Iran's intentions vis-a-vis its nuclear bomb ambitions and cooperation (however slight) with al-Qaeda?

Would he have the courage to order a massive strike, possibly including an outright invasion, to protect Americans from a rumored nuclear attack?

If the answer is yes, then the Iraq war looks relatively justifiable. If no, then what is his position? If he is waiting until we are attacked, then one can easily counter that we were attacked on 9/11. If the argument is to wait until undeniable evidence exists of cooperation between terrorists and governments in agreement with their aim of weaking and eventually destroying America, then at point do we cross that threshold?

In many conversations with lefties of all shades, I have found that this point holds much of the answer to differing interpretations of not only Iraq, but much of Bush's foreign policy. To the extent that one believes that it is the President's role to stop any impending threats to the US using whatever means necessary, then to that extent is one for or against Bush and all that he (purportedly) stands for.

So, if the original question is what would Kerry do, given the conditions above, then how far along this security-first continuum would Kerry fall? It's not clear to me -- in spite of many, many reassurances about a plan or plans in his head -- that Kerry's gut instinct is to fight first. Like many wholly goodhearted people on the left, he seems to find the world to be a place of primarily good hearted people. Few lefties seem to believe in a Hobbsian world, or even a world in which even close allies are not really to be trusted on security matters.

Undercover political machinations occur regularly. Looking overseas for a moment, how many New Republicans' readers believe that principle takes the place of interest when nations act in the international world? Take the case of the Iraqi elections. In this country, Nancy Pelosi closed the entire CIA to any attempt to support a friendly regime, while every other nation in the world could get back to doing exactly that -- but without any competition from the CIA. In what way did her action make America safer? No doubt many ethics professors and goodhearted lefties felt righteous indignation at the CIA's plans. How does Kerry feel -- no, what does he think about Pelosi's crippling action there?

The world outside the US is not only nice beaches, fine wines and smaller cars. It is also filled with people and governments who can and will use our own weaknesses against us. What will Kerry do about that? How will he make the decisions that save American lives in the long-term, but increase hostility in the short term?

On this issue alone, I take my stand and endorse Bush. I don't like many of Bush's decisions on most social issues, but survival is the most primal instinct.