Many questions have been raised about John Kerry's vote for the resolution authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq. One of the biggest questions raised by Kerry's vote is his political opportunism: many believe that Kerry's vote was motivated by his desire to shore up his national security credibility for a presidential run, rather than a sincere view that Bush should be given open-ended authority to wage war against Iraq.
This charge is troublesome especially because John Kerry voted against the first Gulf War. In light of the two contrasting votes, Kerry's position on the recent war seems an act of political expediency. However, the contrast between the two votes raises even more serious concerns in my mind about the coherence of John Kerry's foreign policy views.
Although reasonable people may differ, in my mind Gulf War I had substantial justification. Iraq had committed an act of agression against a sovereign state by invading Kuwait. It's occupation of Kuwait, moreover, threatened to destabilize the entire region, and Iraq posed a serious threat to its other neighbors, especially Saudi Arabia. In light of this threat, the United Nations condemned Iraq's invasion and the Security Council passed a resolution authorizing the use of military force to evict Iraq from Kuwait.
Yet John Kerry voted against the Congressional resolution authorizing the US to use force against Iraq consistent with the Security Council resolution.
Prior to the most recent war, Iraq was a very weakened state. It posed little threat to its neighbors, had not invaded anyone, and intelligence regarding banned weapons programs was very sketchy, at best.
Yet John Kerry voted for a Congressional resolution permitting the President to use military force against Iraq - even without a Security Council resolution and without any demonstrated threat.
These two votes makes John Kerry seems utterly incoherent, in the worst possible way, regarding the use of military force. I cannot conceive of a principled way of reconciling these two votes. This incoherence raise serious doubts in my mind about John Kerry's foreign policy acumen, his seriousness of purpose, and his fitness for commander in chief. It also makes me wonder what principles, other than those of political expediency, would guide Kerry's foreign policy decisions.