Kerry thinks the war on terror is merely a war on "chaos"

At a February 27th, 2004 speech at UCLA John Kerry stated:

The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against the dogmatic fears of progress and the future.

First of all, ignore the drivel regarding that the War on Terror is a clash of “the best hopes of humanity against the dogmatic fears of progress and the future”. It is impossible to pick any sense from that nonsense.

Now consider Kerry’s deep thought that that —in effect —the war on terror is the war on chaos. Marvel at its magnificent stupidity.

Please… Spare me from this drivel.

Both nations and groups have used terrorism; which is more correctly understood as a form of asymmetrical warfare. And, to be pedantic, I guess I have to explicitly say that not all states or groups use terrorism.

Most of the states that I can think of that employed terrorism are the opposite of chaotic. The USSR, North Korea, Syria, Iran and—until recently—Iraq all use terrorism as a matter of state policy and —while some of these might be unstable —none can be described as chaotic.

Afghanistan was a failed state—which was run by a criminal regime— and was itself about one step less chaotic than Somalia. The Taliban themselves were no more capable of organizing 9/11 than they were capable of cold fusion. With respect for terrorism, as far as I know, all the Taliban ever did was host al Qaeda. Since I’m sure they were fully aware of their guest’s activities they’re complicit with al Qaeda’s terrorism. But on the other hand, but they themselves were only capable of playing host to a real terrorist organization.

I offer Haiti as a blinding obvious refutal to Kerry’s plainly stupid premise. Haiti is about as broken and chaotic as any country can be and still be a country. (Yes, Somalia is worse, but not that much worse.) Haiti is simply not a source of terrorism.

So to correct John Kerry, what we actually have here is not a clash between civilization and chaos but a clash between cultures; one of which uses terrorism in pursuit of its policies and one that seeks to eradicate those who use terrorism.

Now that I’ve made the point that chaos is not the “root cause” of terrorism I wonder exactly why Kerry would attempt to make such an asinine statement? What difference would this distinction make? Well a New York Times Magazine article compared Bush’s worldview with Kerry’s:

By singling out three states in particular- Iraq, North Korea and Iran -- as an ''axis of evil,'' and by invading Iraq on the premise that it did (or at least might) sponsor terrorism, Bush cemented the idea that his war on terror is a war against those states that, in the president's words, are not with us but against us. Many of Bush's advisers spent their careers steeped in cold-war strategy, and their foreign policy is deeply rooted in the idea that states are the only consequential actors on the world stage, and that they can -- and should -- be forced to exercise control over the violent groups that take root within their borders.

Kerry's view, on the other hand, suggests that it is the very premise of civilized states, rather than any one ideology, that is under attack. And no one state, acting alone, can possibly have much impact on the threat, because terrorists will always be able to move around, shelter their money and connect in cyberspace; there are no capitals for a superpower like the United States to bomb, no ambassadors to recall, no economies to sanction. The U.S. military searches for bin Laden, the Russians hunt for the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev and the Israelis fire missiles at Hamas bomb makers; in Kerry's world, these disparate terrorist elements make up a loosely affiliated network of diabolical villains, more connected to one another by tactics and ideology than they are to any one state sponsor. The conflict, in Kerry's formulation, pits the forces of order versus the forces of chaos, and only a unified community of nations can ensure that order prevails. [emphasis mine—johnh]

This, my friends, reveals Kerry’s transnational mindset; complete with two fundamental errors.

1. his obviously false theory that chaos causes terrorism


2. his equally false theory that “and only a unified community of nations can ensure that order prevails”

His second theory, that “only a unified community of nations can ensure [world] order” can be refuted by anyone who reads the newspapers. The premise of theory 2 is false because the “community of nations” cannot be unified on this point because too many of them have too much to gain from terrorism!

The primary organization that—in theory—organizes “the community of nations”, the UN, cannot even agree to a basic definition of terrorism. The UN is an organization whose members of its Human Rights Commission is comprised of Sudan, Syria and Cuba; all listed by the U.S. State department as supporters of terrorism. The UN is an organization that voted to replace the U.S., which chaired the, with Syria.

The emerging UN Oil of Food corruption scandal shows that the UN is worse than useless in solving this problem; it is part of the problem.

None of these facts—which I’m sure Kerry is well aware of—mitigates his zeal to put the U.S. at the mercy of transnational organizations. Kerry’s (Jimmy) Carteresque incompetence his is unsuitable for the Presidency.

update:

Wretchard of the Belmont Club has his own comments on the same New York Times Magazine article.

I also had an afterthought regarding the same New Your Times Magazine article. I realized that Kerry’s rhetoric—which dismissively compares terrorism to street crime—reminds me of Jimmy Carter disapproval of an “inordinate fear of communism”.

I hereby predict that the Kerry Presidency—if Kerry is elected—will be Jimmy Carter reloaded.

More:

Big Trunk of PowerLine has a scathing post titled: Senator Kerry's G-8 spot. This has to be filed under great minds think alike:

The promotion of Mubarak and Abdullah—an ugly tyrant and an isolated monarch—as keys to the advancement of American goals in the Middle East. The desire to restart "the road map" without mention of the events that have required its interment. The advocacy of summits and conferences and processes and "messaging" in the face of a war on America's survival. The "unilateral" pursuit of North Korea as a negotiating partner without mention of the Agreed Framework of 1994. Is it not fair to say that this blubbering verges on the delusional?

With this we can agree: ''A new presidency with the right moves, the right language, the right outreach, the right initiatives, can dramatically alter the world's perception of us very, very quickly." We recall how the world's perception of the United States was quickly altered by Jimmy Carter's announcement that we had overcome our inordinate fear of Communism. Mutatis mutandis, John Kerry promises a restoration of the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter -- the looming presence left unmentioned in the Bai article. [Emphasis mine—johnh]

We saw a preview of the futility of Carterism in the face Islamism in the Iranian hostage crisis that terminated the Carter presidency. For those who learn from experience, the case for Carterism is even less compelling in 2004 than it was in 1980. Kerry's resurrection of Carterism in the face of the Islamist war against America would indeed alter the perception of us very, very quickly, although I fear we would not be around long enough to appreciate it fully. (Thanks to RealClearPoltitics.)

Yup, I think that I will not be needing to focus my volcanic power behind pushing this paticular meme; it is so self evident that it pushes itself.

=========

Huge Hewitt has been following the same article. Here's a fragment of his commentary:

Kerry's "this is not the sands of Iwo Jima" line continues to amaze me. Perhaps he's been fixated on Iwo Jima since the cover of New Soldier came out, Kerry's anti-war book with a staged anti-Iwo Jima Memorial cover shot including an upside down American flag.

Oooo... That had to hurt.
hat tip Glen.