Appears as Bush firme en política exterior in La Opinion
Los Angeles, 05 de septiembre de 2004

http://www.laopinion.com/comentarios/?rkey=00040903154201050680

George A. Lopez

Whether you love them or despise them, it is difficult to deny that the Bush team knows how to hammer home its message on foreign policy. In his acceptance speech on Thursday night at the Republic Party convention, President George W. Bush reiterated that unprecedented threats to America demanded new and forceful action, often of a pre-emptive nature.

The President asserted that he made difficult decisions in guiding the war on terror and in going to war in Iraq. Mr. Bush was short on specifics about future issues, but reaffirmed his leadership credentials, while denigrating John Kerry’s. In the days and hours before his address, Senator Zell Miller, Vice President Dick Cheney, and recently retired General Tommy Franks had already framed the central message: as commander-in-chief in the war on terror George Bush has defined the threats clearly and met them forcefully. America is more safe and secure with him as President.

This week the Republicans smartly charted the tone and direction of the foreign policy debate for the remainder or the campaign. Following the mantra of their political strategist Karl Rove, Republicans remained ‘on message’ on foreign policy. Their goal was attained: push America’s fear button on terrorism and portray a courageous and determined President as the solution. When difficult decisions had to be made, George Bush made them. Amidst unforeseen circumstances and criticism, the President has stayed the course. Implying that in a long war on terror accomplishments are difficult to assess, the Republicans have successfully portrayed action, rather than accomplishments, as Presidential virtue.

The space the Republicans have carved out for themselves challenges John Kerry in many ways. He must re-inject substantive arguments into the debate. In his address at the American Legion convention this week, Kerry showed signs that he can speak clearly and more decisively about Iraq and other security issues. The next steps are to define real policy alternatives to the leadership style of the self-proclaimed war president.

For the remainder of the campaign Kerry must convince Americans that the Republicans have distanced themselves and their audience from realities of what is actually happening in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. His best example can be that the George Bush continues to speak of winning the war on terror, but he never mentions the elusive Osama bin Laden.

More specifically, Kerry needs to provide straight talk to the American people about three big foreign policy issues central to success in the war on terror. First, Kerry must aggressively declare that as the number of US casualties approach 1000, ‘staying the course’ in Iraq resounds as a message, but it is not a victory plan. Kerry must show that it is not negativism, but confronting war head on, that leads him to talk about more towns and cities now being under the control of insurgents than ever before. The administration has lost its way on increasing the role of other nations committed to training Iraqi armed forces and police.

Secondly, Kerry needs an action agenda on Iran. Bush’s argument that his decision to go to war in Iraq also has the positive effect of pushing rogue states like Iran into line was underscored in the extreme last week. Vice President Cheney claimed a direct relationship between the capture of Saddam Hussein and the decision of Libyan leader Qaddafi to give up his weapons program. That this linkage fails to match the actual history and reason for Qaddafi’s decision is not the point.

On September 13, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will issue a report documenting that Iran is moving ahead with enriching large amounts of uranium for either energy or weapons use. The Bush Administration is already planning a strong indictment of Iran and a call for potent UN economic sanctions or other action. Kerry must be ready with a strong alternative to the Bush hard-line approach that shows how intense diplomacy, including the appointment of a special envoy to Iran and the use of economic carrots and sticks, is smarter and more effective than bullying and pre-emptive air strikes on Iranian sites.

Finally, Kerry needs a strategic vision for post-election Afghanistan. Although they will be dotted by violence and some irregularities, the October elections in Afghanistan will touted by the Administration as a major victory in the war on terror. While acknowledging the importance of a Karzai election as a step toward American goals, Kerry must emphasize that this government is still vulnerable to internal warlords, an expanding drug trade, emboldened Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants. Kerry may want to note that elections do not guarantee either security or stability and that the war in Iraq has diluted our ability to help an Afghan government establish either in their nation.

To counter ‘the bump’ in the polls many expect the President to get after the convention, Mr. Kerry must push Bush beyond message and into debating methods and means. He must convince Americans that leadership style does not substitute for policy substance. And then he needs to provide the latter in a clear, positive and convincing manner. -------------

George A. Lopez is a Senior Fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.