Kerry vs. Bush: Will Reason Prevail?
With over 1,000 US deaths in Iraq, and the huge pressures that the occupation of that benighted country has put on American troops around the world, it is clear that - for the first time in decades - foreign policy issues may determine the outcome of a US presidential election. Ordinary Americans are asking themselves the same questions that people around the world are asking: how should America's global supremacy be used? What price must be paid for that supremacy to be maintained? What limits on the use of US military power are acceptable or necessary?
These have long been dominant questions in America's strategic debate. But, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, they became confused with another debate, one far more important for a US electorate that feels threatened: how can alliances and multilateral institutions protect Americans? John Kerry's great virtue has been to resist confusing the demand for security and peace with the hegemonic impulses of America the hyper-power.
Nationalist and neo-conservative currents within the Bush administration believe that unilateral action best serves US interests because it handcuffs American power the least. On this view, the security of the US can be guaranteed through energetic military action, with or without allies. Hence the Bush administration's tendency to weaken the ties of America's permanent alliances, including those that NATO represents.
We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.
To continue reading, subscribe now.
Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.
Already have an account or want to create one? Log in