America needs Bush's resolve

This election is unlike any other in recent American history as national security and foreign policy are at the forefront of political discussion. The foreign policy differences between the two candidates are not simply ideological (as was the case in 1980) but personal. The next president of the United States will be responsible for reshaping not only America's role in the world, but the global dynamic itself. We can choose to stick with the decisive leadership of President Bush, or we can choose inaction, equivocation and moral relativity of Sen. Kerry.

No politician has ever faced the unfathomable tragedy that President Bush faced on Sept. 11, 2001. When Lincoln struggled to preserve the Union, he did so within an American context, fighting a war that was, if anything, too familiar. When Roosevelt learned of Pearl Harbor, the landscape of the Second World War had already been mapped out, ready for America to take its place. For President Bush, however, Sept. 11 launched him into an unprecedented arena, one without pretext or analogy. And when faced with this violently sudden reality, President Bush rose to the occasion, proclaiming unabashedly and without hesitation that "the rest of the world hears [us]." He told America and the world in no uncertain terms that these act of terror would not stand, and that this struggle would be one between good and evil.

Many have called this approach simplistic and arrogant. There are times when leaders must take a stand of zero tolerance, regardless of practicality and pragmatism. Whether the struggle be for civil rights, independence or liberation, history has shown that in a time of crisis, resolve and resolution must take precedence over neutrality.

It is in this spirit that President Bush led coalitions to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq, and in this spirit that his administration has disarmed Libya and built a world wide anti-terror network that is choking off the resources of terror networks every day. The president's critics have condemned Iraq as a failure and mistake because we didn't find the weapons stockpiles — arms that almost every global intelligence service suspected Saddam of possessing. What these critics argue, however, is that because Saddam did not have weapons, he was not a threat and should have been left in power. It is difficult to understand why this ruthless dictator's ability to so deftly fool the CIA, MI6, the ISI and several other intelligence services makes him less of a threat.

Such criticism, however misguided, is at times minimally consistent. The same cannot be said for the president's challenger, Senator John F. Kerry. Since the president first called on the United Nations to review the sanctions on Iraq on Sept. 13, 2002, Sen. Kerry has held every possible position. After voting to authorize the use of force and describing Saddam Hussein as threat to the United States, Kerry has called this the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. After chastizing the president for "outsourcing" the war in Afghanistan to the Afghanis, a move which avoided a tribal civil war in nuclear Pakistan. Sen. Kerry lambasted the president for allowing American forces to bear too much of the burden in Iraq. When it comes to any unique proposals, the best the senator can offer is to hold a summit with world leaders, depending on his good looks and boyish charm to get the French into a war 90 percent of their population opposes. Worst of all, Kerry claims that under his administration, the United States would have to pass a "global test" before taking any action. However, Europeans' attitudes toward the United States range from xenophobic to vile, and are prejudiced and largely anti-Semitic. No American should want to yield the security of his or her country to a global test, certainly not the president of the United States. Kerry's plan, depending on global tests, ambiguity and lacking any clear rationale is at best quixotic.

President Bush will lead us through this time of peril by being resolute in the face of danger, unflinching when threatened and always standing up in defense of America.

We must remember the words of Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Rob Diamond '07 writes on behalf of the College Republicans. He can be reached at rdiamond@princeton.edu.