By Henry Chien, 10/24/04

Recently, a group of concerned Chinese Americans declared their support for Senator Kerry to be the next president of USA. Many of them have been good friends of mine. When they attempted to explain why, their arguments were exclusively structured around the "failed" policies of President Bush in justifying a "change" in leadership. They seemed to be so disappointed by these "failed" policies that any discussion of Senator Kerry's qualification to lead would not be necessary. In other words, anyone would be better than Bush, including Kerry.

Several of their arguments were related to fundamental differences in problem solving between Democrats and Republicans; economics, unemployment rate, environment, and health care costs. We can all argue forever about: 1) how these problems should be addressed either by a big government or by the private sector; 2) how to provide incentives to create new solutions to old problems or to divide the problems equitably among people of different income levels; and 3) how to see glasses as half full or to see them as half empty and not be called a liar. However, one trend is very clear in the world that the strength of the private sector has been playing an ever increasing role in solving huge social problems resulting from big governments everywhere in countries like China, India, etc. This trend can not be reversed here in the USA against the globalization forces created from fast technology advances in communications and transportations. If anyone dreams that a big USA government can stop the out-sourcing problem of jobs to China against the economic forces in play, they need to wake up and observe how many manufacturing jobs have already been lost to China and how this transfer has helped the economy of the entire world. The private sector (you and I) has been quite busy to address this out-sourcing problem by finding (or creating) new jobs not being sent over. During this adjustment, there will be (negative) incentives (that is additional unemployment) required.

The real critical issues of concern seemed to be the war in Iraq and the huge federal deficit. (These are obviously not issues for the private sector except that a rapid growth in economy would help reduce the deficit.) If one believes that the costs of war against terrorism, which includes the costs of military actions as well as the tax cuts used to fight the recession caused by the terrorist attack, was the main reason for the deficit, the real issue would be all about the war in Iraq and how it relates to the war on terrorism.

I am not trained in military or game strategy. So, I have to count on those who are experts to come up with a working (and evolving) strategy against terrorism for our country. However, in hindsight (after several years), the war in (not against) Iraq seems to be a part of a brilliant overall strategy against terrorism. People are very troubled by the killings in Iraq. As peace-loving humanitarians, they want it stopped. They see the huge cost of lives and no benefits (or glass is half empty, not full). In fact, many of them complained that there were no terrorist in Iraq before the war. With so many of them in Iraq now, this means the war against terrorism is going the wrong way. They seemed to support the war in Afghanistan. There, they saw a successful removal of the Taliban government and its training facilities of terrorists.

Terrorism is not a country like the defeated Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It is a way of fighting, like guerilla warfare. After we destroyed the Taliban regime, have we won the terrorism war? No, because these surviving terrorists will simply move elsewhere and perform their offense against innocent defenseless citizens. So, how do we play offense (instead of defense) against the Islamic terrorists? To play offense, we need to get them together first. To get them together, we need to attack something that they really care about. To me, the Islamic terrorists care about establishing governments that is led by the Islamic church. So, the most important part of war in Iraq is not the overthrow of Sadam Husein who did not want the Islamic church to have power over his dictatorship, but the establishment of a non-religious government. After the downfall of Sadam, the international Islamic terrorists saw an opportunity to change Iraq into a religious state but also a threat to lose the control to a democracy. A true democracy that allows a complete religious freedom would be totally unacceptable to these terrorists. So they converged to fight us there in Iraq.

How could a strategy be called brilliant if so many good soldiers are dying? The success and failure of any strategy still depends on its execution. At least, we have our well trained and well equipped soldiers fighting them there, and not the small security forces in airports here doing the fighting. This strategy should save innocent lives here at the costs of military casualties there. So, not taking the offensive (to save our military casualties) would not be a good alternative. This convinced me that it is the right war!

Why wasn't establishing democracy in Afghanistan enough to keep terrorists busy? There are too many of them. Getting into Iraq was like opening another front (in a conventional war). Keeping them busy is the best method to protect the security of our homeland. This convinced me that it is the right place and the right time to keep them occupied.

Why wasn't Iran selected as the second (or third) front, after all it is already a religious Islamic state that terrorists would hate to lose to democracy? Do we need another front to tie down more terrorists? Can the people in USA, especially those who are not ready to use aggressive actions to protect our homeland, accept a war in Iran?

As Senator Kerry complained about the Iraq War as the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place, I can only say that Senator Kerry was either not a military strategist (like the rest of us commoners), or he is aware of its impact but lying to the voters to get their votes. Personally, I do not believe that politicians would lie to get what they want. They may unknowingly fail to notice information not consistent with their biases. So, any talk about Bush (or Kerry) lying to the voters to start the war in Iraq insults my intelligence on human behavior. So, even when Kerry changes his mind on major issues quickly and then again, I would still not call him a liar, but someone who can not make up his mind while dealing with complex issues. I am sure you must have known some people who are like Kerry. They are not at all bad people. However, in an executive position like the presidency, you would prefer someone who will make a decision with perceivably better odds and then go with it and not waiting forever for a sure thing. This is my argument also against waiting forever for the UN to make a move against the terrorists who attacked USA. Who do we blame if the USA would suffer another bad terrorist attack while waiting for the UN to do something? A senator from Massachusetts or the president of USA?

Most peace loving people, who are not quite prepared to accept preemptive actions, would want to wait for another attack from our enemy, like Pearl Harbor, to justify another step-up of the war on terrorists. Would you vote for President Bush if we should experience another major terrorist attack in USA before the election? If so, why not vote for him before it happens. I will.