While President Bush and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry were campaigning around the country this past weekend, two very significant elections were being held on the other side of the world.
In Afghanistan, millions of men and women went to the voting booths for the first time in their lives-not to mention the first time in their country's history. Although there may be some flaws in this historic first election, it is being celebrated around the world because of the staggering turnout and significance in the future of Middle Eastern affairs. As Americans, we too must celebrate this great achievement of democracy.
Meanwhile, down under, Australian Prime Minister John Howard won a decisive victory over opposition Labor Party leader Mark Latham. Under Howard's leadership, Australia joined the U.S.-led coalition to eject Saddam Hussein from power. More than 2,000 Aussie troops participated in the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and nearly a thousand remain in the country today.
Since the Australian public is torn on the issue of Iraq, much like Americans are, and Latham pledged, if elected, to remove Australian forces by the end of the year, Howard's re-election strengthens President Bush's stance on the progress in Iraq. The Australian people have spoken: The liberation of Iraq, however unpopular in some places around the globe, was the right thing to do.
This influx of international support comes as Kerry continues to degrade America's coalition partners in Iraq. Kerry claims the United States has \pushed its alliances aside,"" calling Great Britain, Poland, Australia and nearly 30 other nations a coalition of the ""bribed and coerced."" Additionally, Kerry continues to condemn U.S.-led efforts in Iraq as the ""wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,"" labeling the operation a ""grand diversion.""
Despite his antiwar rhetoric, Kerry hypocritically continues to stress the importance of winning ""the wrong war"" and the need for a broader sharing of the burden to do so. Kerry's Iraq policy differs from the president's only in that it calls for a summit of the world's major powers to discuss the increased burden sharing that he proposes. Sure, that sounds good, but how much sense does it make to court countries like Germany and France, who insist that no matter who is elected come November, they will not be sending troops or other capital to Iraq-no matter how much clam chowder Kerry offers to serve up?
During last Friday's presidential debate, Kerry said, ""I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table."" If that is the case, then why does Kerry keep shooting himself in the foot by denouncing our current mission and partners in Iraq?
Typical of a New England aristocrat, it appears Kerry never learned how to make friends. He certainly will not make them by dishonoring others. The American people cannot put the future of the war on terror in the hands of a man with conflicting sentiments.
The recent events in Afghanistan and Australia have reinforced the Bush Doctrine. It is time for Americans to do so as well.
Adam Schmidt is a freshman majoring in political science.
