An American War on Terror

[Tamyrlin79]

The key choice in this election for Americans is not between a Democrat or a Republican. The true question presented by the candidates in Election 2004 is this: How do we want the War on Terror to be fought? It is a strategic question that requires a values-based answer from the American people. The extremely important answer may very well determine whether we will ultimately win or lose that conflict. A presidential election is always a question of leadership: what leadership we want and which direction we want them to lead us in. We choose our candidate by which direction we think is best for the country.

The grand argument behind John Kerry's critique against George Bush in this election is that we cannot win the War on Terrorism by sacrificing American values in the process. For the president, "everything changed after September 11." Here, John Kerry objects. Indeed, our strategic and security situation may have changed, but our American values are enduring. Those have not changed. The constitution has not been repealed. Just because we fight a war on terror does not mean that torture is now "okay" or that imprisoning people without trial or access to counsel is justifiable. It does not mean that "last resort" is no longer the moral standard for justifying a preemptive war. And, what's more, John Kerry argues that sacrificing our values in how we fight this war has hurt the war effort and is emboldening our enemies.

Thus, John Kerry's challenge to the president in this election is ultimately a moral challenge and by making it, Kerry has seized the moral highground in the election, from which his attacks on the president can be launched. By doing so, he is demonstrating to the public how he plans to fight the War on Terror and the war in Iraq differently from George Bush: He will fight the war from the moral highground that he is claiming in the election. Kerry's attacks on Bush are those that are justified according to American values and standards of conduct, implying that so will Kerry's attacks and actions in the prosecution of the actual war. Kerry is saying to the public that he is willing to fight the war, but he's not willing to sell America's soul in the process.

Kerry's argument to the American people is that we cannot be "strong in the war on terror", as Bush phrases it, if we do not have a strong strategic position in that war. In ground war, the higher ground is always the more strategic position. We cannot be in the strongest possible strategic position politically if we do not have the moral highground. From post-September 11 world-wide support and sympathy to post-invasion and post-Abu Ghraib hatred, America's image in the world has plummeted. Losing that highground was a key mistake. It was a strategic error that has isolated the United States from the rest of the world and hurt the war effort. Bush accuses Kerry of harming the war effort by his critical words, by his "mixed messages", but Kerry counters by accusing Bush of harming the war effort by his and his administration's actions. By conducting the war in an immoral fashion, by invading Iraq preemptively and in a way that the Secretary General of the United Nations has called "illegal", we lost the moral highground and gave it to our enemies, who are now using it to boost recruitment to their cause and neutralize America and its allies.

Thus, Kerry's challenge asserts that losing the moral highground was a serious strategic blunder; that George Bush and his administration is ultimately responsible for that loss; that, being the one who lost it, George Bush does not have the credibility in the world to regain that highground even if he tried; and that without regaining that highground America will be more likely to lose the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. Thus, mounting an effort to reclaim the moral highground for America and improve America's strategic position in the world and in the war is what Kerry promises to accomplish. This means that by electing him, regaining America's moral authority in the world will be a key part of his electoral mandate. And he will do this by reclaiming and recommitting us to our common values through his campaign and election, and then he fight an American War on Terror that is based in American values and that honors and upholds our American ideals.

Thus, the duty for the American People in this election is to decide whether we will continue the war as it is going and "be steadfast and strong", or whether we will change course and open a new ideological front in the war that will give us a chance us to retake the moral and political highground. That is the direction that Kerry says he will lead us. Whether we should follow is a strategic decision that the American public gets to decide in the voting booth in this election, and all Americans need to think long and hard about it because the course we choose will affect the course of the war and the future of America and the world.

[peacetalksforall]

1. Magical outcome to pragmatic and human-soul approach.

We are in a territorial fight.

We have corporations in this country along with friends claiming everyone else's earth resources are theirs at dirt cheap prices, if not free - in the name of democracy.

We have simple people and leaders out there claiming that they want to retain their culture and the earth resources that come with their boundaries, but maybe with some modern equal opportunites of their choice that add to their culture within parameters that they work out for themselves.


We have religious fanatics in this country claiming that YOU won't survive after death without being born again.

We have religious fanatics out there who ditto ours with equal limitations and promises.


We have the military in this country claiming they can set up military bases anywhere they want if they take over first or pay enough a la payola to some individuals or groups.

We have simple people and leaders out there who don't want soldiers drinking and seeking sex in their country.


We have self-proclaimed agenda designers in this country who decide that Israel can kick out the Palestinians and that treaties can be broken anywhere at any time and that max profits be made along the way while promoting the containment of the people everywhere.

We have people out there who prefer America the people, not America the colonial-imperialist ruler with phoney democracy paragraphs and phrases coming from a few designers of world control.


We're in a territorial fight of words, killing, and abuse.
But some find it beneficial to call it a war and some a jihad and some a massacre.

We would have been better off treating 9-11 as a crime and allowing ALLLLLLL the criminals be tried.

Peace people unite to contain the territories without blood, abuse, and phoney words and with magnanimous and tolerant intentions.