Why nobody should vote for Kerry: the military explanation

Public officials should work for the public good, the Church says. It is the primary duty of the state to safeguard a well-ordered peace, and to repel threats against that tranquility, whether those threats arise from within or without. That duty, not confiscating and redistributing wealth, is the first function a state must provide.
In my judgment, Senator John Kerry does not have the qualities necessary to hold the office of the president. If he were elected, he would be entrusted with the solemn duty of defending the nation against foreign threats (the states are the main bulwark against domestic offenders.) His record in the Senate shows that he lacks prudence, and would be unwilling to risk his own political career to assure the safety of America.
Hyperbole, you say? I thought so, too, until I saw this. It’s a list of defense projects that Kerry wanted to cancel 20 years ago. If he had his way, he would have ripped most of the vertebrae out of the military’s backbone. Tomahawks, F-14s, F-15s, Apache gunships, Patriot anti-missile defense batteries — in short, major components of the American forces that are feared by our enemies — would have been cancelled by the senator.
(Speaking of backbone, I note that he did not propose reducing the number of ships the Navy wanted to build, which are much more expensive than dinky little airplane projects. Could the reason be that the Navy spent billions in Massachusetts shipyards during the 1980s? Principle often takes a backseat to protecting local industries, as when Joe Lieberman campaigns for stricter gun control while standing up for Colt Firearms.)
“We are continuing a defense buildup,” Kerry wrote, “that is consuming our resources with weapons systems that we don’t need and can’t use.” While our regiment was fighting in Nasiriyah, and we heard the “needless” Harriers flying close air support missions to destroy the people trying to kill us, it sure sounded necessary to us. But then, none of us had been in Vietnam, which according to the senator makes you an expert on the necessity of weapons systems. Even questioning whether we should have shelved advanced air-to-air weapons systems — which ensured our pilots’ success over Iraq in two wars — is apparently “questioning his patriotism.”
Voting against a military program does not mean you’re against the military, nor does it mean you’re imprudent when it comes to national defense. One item on Kerry’s list, the rehabilitation of WWII-era battleships, was expensive and unnecessary, just as he said. The Pentagon budget is often used for pork barrel spending. Some weapons systems, such as the ludicrously heavy and unwieldy Crusader howitzer, result from a military service’s ideology instead of a keen appreciation for real-world defense needs.
However, when you explicitly criticize the Reagan military buildup as “wasteful,” “useless,” and “dangerous,” and imply that the world is more dangerous because America was better able to confront the most murderous regime in human history — a government that manufactured over 20,000 nuclear warheads to obliterate Western democracies — you deserve to have your judgment questioned.
Kerry doesn’t deserve special criticism: all of the leading Democrats said the same things. In 1984, he was campaigning in the state that sent the corpulent (but amusing) Tip O’Neill to the House and lady-killer (pun intended) Ted Kennedy to the Senate. Events showed that they were all fools, at least in these matters. The former heads of the Soviet Union confirmed that it was the Reagan buildup that bankrupted their evil empire, giving that doomed system one of its deathblows. (The other proximate cause was the Holy Father.)
If John Kerry and his cohorts had his way, there would still be a Soviet Union disturbing the peace and repressing peoples around the world. To use one of Bill Clinton’s smarmy phrases, nuclear missiles would still be “pointed at America’s children.” The American military would still be using the technologies of the 1960s.
On policy as well as procurement, Kerry was a reliable voice against any robust measures against American enemies. From Grenada to Nicaragua to Iraq, and whenever America tried to help communism’s victims, Kerry boldly excused the actions of the oppressors.
Senator Kerry served his country with honor in Vietnam. I will leave it to Vietnam veterans to deal with his later treachery against them. John Kerry’s entire career in the Senate demonstrates that he cannot choose the proper tools for the military, and that he is incapable of identifying real threats against the United States and acting against them. His presidency would not likely produce a just and lasting peace; indeed his presence in the White House would invite murderous mayhem, as he has promised a tepid, “internationalist” response to any future threats. For those reasons, Kerry ought to be rejected on military terms alone.
COMING SOON — Why nobody should vote for Kerry: the Catholic explanation