The "global test" is a good thing...r1

Republicans keep poking fun at Kerry's statement that wars should pass a global test. But what is this global test Kerry appeals to? Is it good? I think it is good.

The global test is not the same as passing a sheet around asking for permission to protect our nation before we go to war. The Republicans would like to make you think that's what the "global test" is all about, but it's not about that. The global test is about being able to look the world in the eyes and say, "We did this war for justified reasons." It's about being able to say, "We had no other option but to go to war."

So why must we pass a "global test" when going to war? Well, first of all, so we can get help in future wars if we need the help.

For example, if we need to invade a country some day, because our intelligence says, "They are a threat."; will other countries be more likely to believe us? After the Iraq debacle, probably not! Why? Because in this war, we went based on bad intelligence! The world will look at us in future wars and think, "man if they had bad intelligence then, who's to say they have good intelligence now."

Right now, in the world's eyes, USA does not look like it's telling the truth if we go to other nations and say, "Our intelligence shows such and such country is a threat, will you please help us get rid of the threat, we have no other resort!" Why do we not look like we're telling the truth if a situation like this comes up? Because in Iraq, we established a track record of both going to war on bad intelligence, and on going to war as a first resort, instead of as a last resort. We failed the "global test", and as a result we are less credible, and will have a more difficult time in the future recruiting allies.

After a war, we should be able to point to solid evidence, and say, "see this is why we went to war!" If we're able to do this, in the future, other nations will be more likely to help us if we need it. Why? Because we'll of had an established track record of being credible and justified. We have nothing to point to in Iraq. All we have is a bunch of bad intelligence and continual mixed justifications for the war? Ya, think this leaves our nation more secure in the future if we really "do" need to have a war and do "need" to get allies? Sure America can point to the bad guy Saddam and to the freed Iraqi's and we can say, "See we were justified." But then the world will look at our lack of passion for getting rid of other bad guys, and just shake their heads at us. And again, it's not about winning their approval for approval sake. It's about being credible, incase sometime in the future we do need their help. Because a nation will not follow us if we have a record that is not credible,



So for Republicans to say the "global test" threatens our security, it's just a lie! If anything the global test strengthens our security, because it increases the chances of people joining us in the future if we really do need to go to war.

If the global test was about "getting permission" before we defended ourselves, then it would clearly be something bad. But the global test is anything but seeking permission.It's about being credible in the eyes of the world, for the sake of our own security down the road.

Show all stories by   Author:  47162 ( Click here )