John Kerry's metrosexual foreign policy

04 August 2004

John Kerry would rather look good on the world stage than take the tough decisions necessary to destroy the world's terrorist networks. As a US Senator for twenty years he has been on the wrong side of most important national security votes.

Wordspy.com defines "meterosexual"* as “an urban male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle”.

Critics and supporters of botox-enhanced John Kerry have suggested that the Massachusetts Senator is adopting a metrosexual (or poseur) approach to the war on terror.

Conservativehome.com agrees that this a provocative and accurate description of John Kerry’s obsession with winning the approval of European and Arab powers. In contrast President Bush is pursuing the right strategy. Although his disdain for political leaders who don’t share his worldview is often unhelpful, he is right about the fundamental truth that the west is engaged in a hi-risk, life-and-death race with terrorists who will stop at nothing to get nuclear or other weaponry to use against ‘infidel’ nations like Britain and America.

Flip-flop Kerry’s crowd-pleasing address to his party’s Boston Convention contained a little something for everyone. He rejects George Bush’s failure to work through the United Nations but he reserves the right to defend America without the UN’s approval. He promises to provide better funding for US troops abroad but stands by his decision to vote against the Bush administration’s increased funding for the military. In the absence of any clarity from the Democrats’ nominee this memo argues that Kerry’s overall instincts will make America - and the free world – much more vulnerable to terrorism.

For someone running for President, a few highly-decorated months of service in Vietnam do not speak so pertinently as nearly twenty years in the Senate. John Kerry the Senator has been on the wrong side of every important foreign policy issue of those two decades. ‘Greenham Common’ Kerry opposed the deployment of the Cruise and Pershing missile systems – Europe’s nuclear deterrence – in the early 1980s. He voted against the liberation of Kuwait ten years later and throughout his time as Senator the man who now promises to equip America’s armed forces repeatedly voted against major weapon systems – including Patriot missiles, B2 stealth bombers and F18 fighter jets.

This defining chronological fact needs to be repeated to Kerry and the Bush-bashing Democrats who talk much more about Iraq than 9/11. Bush has the right focus. He is focused on preventing a well-funded, suicidal, west-hating terrorist network from getting nuclear or other weaponry for use against Washington, London, Sydney or Jerusalem. Saddam had the capacity to give terrorists the technology they crave and that’s why Iraq’s murderous dictator had to be deposed.

The UN oil-for-food programme to Iraq has been exposed as a multi-billion dollar fraud. Billions of dollars intended to feed the people impoverished by Saddam were siphoned away* by either Saddam himself or French and Russian oil interests. The UN – an institution-of-convenience that failed the people of Srebrenica* and Rwanda, and is hesitating in the face of the unfolding tragedy in Darfur, Sudan – has no moral authority to make a war just. The Vatican’s faith in this organisation is particularly erroneous given all that it has done to promote abortion rights throughout the world (often against the wishes of traditionalist countries). Yes, the UN can usefully bring the world together in conversation – but don’t expect it to take brave decisions quickly, or even at all.

Senator Kerry is silent about the threat posed by other rogue nations – Iran, Syria, North Korea. Instead he talks again and again about homeland security. But defence is not enough. The war on terror can’t be won within America’s borders. Commander-in-Chief Kerry would fail to tackle rogue nations because he’s afraid of the 80% of Democrat Party members and over 90% of convention delegates who oppose the liberation of Iraq. His opposition to the Patriot Act* also shows that he is unwilling to accept that certain civil liberties have to be curtailed in wartime as a matter of homeland security.

Links for further research

Parag Khanna’s positive (and amusing) case* for a meterosexual foreign policy.

The Heritage Foundation's briefing* on homeland security.

Text* of John Kerry’s all-things-to-all-people convention speech.