Preventing a threat vs. reacting to disaster

As outlined on Blogs for Bush, there is a stark choice this November as to the course of national security policy. On one side stands President Bush who has declared that we can no longer wait for threats to gather and that, hopefully with the support of the world but necessarily without it, we must face these dangers before they grow.

Then there’s Senator Kerry who is paralyzed by the thought of taking action without the approval of the French. Also, in his acceptance speech to the Democratic convention, Kerry said the following: "Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response."

There you have it. Kerry will react to a terrorist strike. President Bush will act before the danger reaches our shores.

By pure serendipity, my Book-a-Day calendar today lists a book called “Warrior Politics” by Robert D. Kaplan. I’ve retyped the summary here:

"Why was Neville Chamberlain willing to live with Hitler, and Bill Clinton ready to make nice with Communist China? Robert D. Kaplan blames it on a combination of Christian forbearance and liberal democratic principles that has made most Western leaders unwilling to recognize tyrants and despots for what they are. To replace the warm, fuzzy policies of today, he urges a return to the hard-nosed practices advocated by such philosophers as Thucydides, Sun-Tzu, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Kaplan argues that it is delusional to think we can get along with megalomaniacs, and insists that it is best to face them down now rather than later (by which time they are likely to have grown stronger)."

Well-put.

[Cross-posted on Blogs for Bush]