|
 |
October 12, 2004
Foreign policy: Bush battles Kerry
|
Alex Avila
Instructor,
Political Science |
The first debate between the two presidential candidates is over. We know both candidates have a different view of how to conduct the war in Iraq specifically, and the war on terror in general. Senator Kerry calls for a multilateral approach, and President Bush prefers a more unilateral stance--the concern for both being the ability to act in the best interests of the US. Both positions are reasonable; the question is which one would serve to relieve the burden placed on US military forces. Iraq is not the only war being waged by the US. There is still Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, and the war on terror worldwide: it would be foolish to believe that al-Qaeda is the only Muslim group upset with not only the United States, but also the entire Western world.
The citizens of the United States must decide next month who would best lead in this all-encompassing war. Whether you believe that Iraq is a part of the war on terror or not makes little difference. Neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry can or will leave Iraq without providing some semblance of order: a “democracy” may no longer be the issue eventually. It is difficult to maintain democratic institutions if there is constant strife in any society. Therefore, to give democracy a chance people must be able to vote without fear of being shot or killed in the process. Probably more important, providing such basics as electricity, water, sanitation, jobs, gasoline, security, etc., is an issue.
Political rights cannot become a concern until the basic economic needs of the society are met: that takes stability. There can be no stability until the Kurds, Shi'a, and Sunni have resolved the issue of power distribution in Iraq; right now U.S. forces are not only fighting the Sunni supporters of Saddam, they are also battling Shi'a Muslims who suffered under Saddam.
The U.S. may not just cut and run leaving Iraq in chaos. This would be dangerous for the region as a whole. The very thing the elder President Bush feared in the first gulf war would come to pass: the belief that by taking out Saddam a power vacuum would occur that may destabilize the entire Middle East, clearly not in the best interests of the United States politically or economically. If, however, the US stays “too long.” the image of our troops as an army of occupation by the Arab world, and the world in general (both allies and enemies), would be affirmed despite American desires for the opposite.
Then one must deal with the question of exiting Iraq without causing further damage to the United States’ ability to continue waging the global war on terror-that war started before the overthrow of Saddam, and be will there after the mission in Iraq is completed. Even a superpower must take stock of its resources and in the process, priorities.
Multilateral, unilateral--the line between Bush and Kerry is there, decide, VOTE.
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
|
|
|
