America the vulnerable

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

The choices facing President Bush in 2001 were between a crumbling security situation with respect to terrorism, missile threats and the proliferation of nuclear weapons on the one hand, and taking the initiative to build a stronger and safer America on the other. How easily we forget, but the decade of the 1990s witnessed terrorist attacks of increasing deadliness.Nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles were being secretly sought by Iran and North Korea. But even as these threats gathered, the Clinton administration told Congress in 2000 that establishing a counterterrorism strategy was "silly."

By contrast, President Bush stopped "swatting at flies" and put together an extraordinary allied coalitiontoliberate Afghanistan and Iraq and drain two critical terrorist "swamps." He established a Proliferation Security Initiative and strengthened programs to secure all dangerous nuclear materials. He has deployed missile defenses to protect America as an insurance policy in case deterrence fails. And he has done so with the unprecedented cooperation of some six dozen nations.

In response to September11,weliberated Afghanistan in record time. We killed or captured 85 percent of al Qaeda's operatives, including the key architect of the attacks on America. The Taliban was destroyed. More than 10 million Afghans have now completed a free election in a country that is now an ally of ours.

On Iraq, Sen. John McCain correctly explains that the sanctions and the inspection regime were failing. The Duelfer report revealed an Iraqi intention to produce new deadly arsenals as soon as possible, an event that would be increasingly difficult to detect in time. Our allies here and abroad said Iraq had deadlystockpilesof weapons. So did Mr. Kerry. Only Saddam said no weapons existed.

At one time, even Mr. Kerry believed inspections and sanctions would gain us at best a few months before deadly arsenals were rebuilt. In 2002, he warned Saddam "would slide" these weapons to terrorists to attack the United States. As the Duelfer report reveals, Iraq was indeed training terrorists in assassinations and bombings, and was using the Oil for Food program to procure illicit items that could have ended up in terrorist hands.

The liberation of Iraq was not in retaliation for September 11; it was to prevent another far worse attack. As explained in Richard Miniter'snewbook, "Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush is Winning the War on Terror," the president's new counterterrorism initiatives, coupled with the implementation of the Patriot Act, have resulted in dozens of terrorist plots being foiled and terrorist cells destroyed.

The administration successfully disarmed Libya through adept diplomacy and covert action. It also shut down the Pakistan-based Khan network, which was busy selling nuclear-weapons technology, twintriumphsthat brought key threats to a halt. On North Korea, the administration established the six-power talks, replacing the failed 1994 bilateral deal, a negotiating structure to which Mr. Kerry inexplicably wants to return.

These successes stand in stark contrast to Mr. Kerry's record of being on the wrong side of history. In 1971, he urged the United States to accept the North Vietnamese terms of surrender. In 1984, at the height of the Cold War, he supported the Soviet-sponsored nuclear freeze and opposed the critically important -- and NATO-supported -- deployment of our INF missiles in Europe. In 1985, as terrorism expanded in Central America, he urged the United States to accept the terms of the Communist Sandinistas. In 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, even though the United Nations approved of kicking Saddam out, Mr. Kerry voted no. Even then he flunked his own "global test." Later, he sought to repeatedly cripple and delay missile defenses, despite missile strikes on Israel and U.S. forces during the same Gulf War.

As terrorism worsened in the 1990s, Mr. Kerry proposed a seven-year freeze on defense spending, arguing, "Where's the threat?" Mr. Kerry also proposed cutting back intelligence resources by the billions. So lacking in judgment was Mr. Kerry that his amendment cutting intelligence was denounced even by fellow Democrats as "dangerous" and defeated by a vote of 75-20. Over 35 years, every time America needed his help, he left us in danger.

Peter Huessy is president of GeoStrategic Analysis.