Pick a Doctrine

I've always said November's a referendum on foreign policy. Indepundit (Citizen Smash) makes comparison easy, by reducing the "Bush Doctrine" to four principles:

1. We will fight for freedom. We reject moral relativism.


2. The friends of our enemies are also our enemies.


3. We reserve the right to hit our enemies before they strike us.


4. We will not negotiate with those who continue to support terrorism.

John Kerry's acceptance speech articulated the opposite:

And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.

Bush's vision saved thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq. Kerry favors foregoing force until it's nearly futile. Actions have obvious consequences. So does failure to act, though that's tougher to quantify. The U.S. didn't have to wage war in the developing world a decade ago--unfortunately for the people of Rwanda and Burundi; luckily for those in Haiti and Kosovo. England and France didn't have to go to war in central Europe 65 years ago--but delaying the dispute doomed not only Austrians, Czechs and Poles, but hundreds of thousands of Brits and Frogs.

The ideal is impossible; everything is "compared to what." Preemption may not be perfect, but Bush's strategy is a sensible reaction to the scope and shape of terrorism today. In contrast, Kerry's alternative is premised on the preposterous presumption that peace is promoted by an a priori allegiance to indecision and inaction. Which foreign policy best safeguards your home and family?