Does John Kerry Really Meet This Requirement?

It might be a great idea for both future Republican and Democrat administrations (and any conceivable third party administrations as well) to name a retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to be our Secretary of State.  Please understand that this is not because a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would be pro-war.  Anyone who has had combat experience is definitely not pro-war.  Those with combat experience know with every cell of their being that when a war breaks out, it will be those in the services who will be doing the bleeding and the dying. Just ask any soldier, in any army, from any nation on the planet, if they are in favor of a bloody war. There would be a thunderous reply of not merely “NO!”, but “Hell, no!”

Not so the usual Ivy League graduate who never served a day in uniform but rather entered the Department of State, and spent their entire lives with protocol as their major concern, along with being well dressed and speaking mellifluously without saying a single word that’s worth remembering.

The reason for a retired Chairman to run the State Department is that it would be useful, and potentially very productive to have someone who has actually heard the wheet of a bullet going past his head sitting at the table for a peace conference.  While I, and hundreds of thousands of my brothers were enjoying the thrill of being in the sultry paradise of Viet Nam, those who were attending the peace conference in Paris were suffering the intense cruelty of being denied out of season oysters for an appetizer.  That was the real hell, at least in their minds, not war.

William Tecumseh Sherman would be a wonderful example of the kind of war leader to sit at a peace conference.  Or perhaps General Norman Schwartzkoff.  Neither exudes the “Yeah, I wear a uniform, but I’m really a politician” penumbra.

Everyone else sitting around that table would recognize that the person representing the United States of America was the type that you really didn’t want to cross — or meet in a dark alley somewhere.  Each peace talk participant’s subconscious would be telling them, in no uncertain terms, that not offering to compromise with such a person could be a serious, perhaps even deadly, mistake.

No matter how reasonable our Secretary of State sounded, no matter how rational his position might be, there would be the subliminal message of unrestrained force to back up their mild words and modest proposals.  When the person sending that subliminal message actually has “walked-the-walk” and not merely “talked-the-talk”, the reality of the situation would suddenly leap into a crystal clear picture of the possible alternatives to intransigence on the part of the other participants.  Just think how much more productive future peace talks would be.


About Jim Yardley

Retired after 30 years as a financial controller for a variety of manufacturing firms, a two-tour Vietnam veteran, and independent voter.
Gallery | This entry was posted in 2014 election, 2016 election, Benghazi, Democrats, Egypt / Morsi, Foreign Affairs, Iran, Kenya, Libya, Observing Our Culture, Pakistan, Political Doubletalk, Republicans, Syria, United Nations and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Does John Kerry Really Meet This Requirement?

  1. kathy says:

    And I’d like to thank you for your service for our country. Two tours in Viet Nam means you know what you are talking about and more. Thank you. We owe our freedom and liberty to our Veterans, not our politicians. I agree, only those who know the horrors and sacrifice of war are qualified to be Secretary of State.

  2. Pete Morin says:

    You present a very cogent argument as to an individual’s qualifications for the post of Secretary of State. But why ask whether John Kerry meets this requirement? I abhor liberalism and all its statist inclinations. Does that make him unqualified? No.

    Judge Robert Bork was conservative in his political views. Senator Kennedy saw that as a disqualification to his being an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. As much as we despise Kerry and his politics, we must not sink to the level inhabited by the former ‘lion of the Senate.’

    Politically, I disagree with just about everything this administration does. Nominating, and confirming, Kerry to this important post is just another example of a schizophrenic electorate, poorly armed from a lack of information needed to hire competent leaders. The real issue is the Commander and Chief, not the Secretary of State.

    • Jim Yardley says:

      Pete, my idea of qualification for the SecState is primarily that he radiates resolve above all. “Implacable” strikes me as a good description.

      Henry Kissinger voiced the best description of allies and enemies I think, when he said “Nations do not have friends, they have interests.” Our representative must first, and last, think of American interests. If their interests happen to coincide with those if the United States, we might be able to temporarily work toward a common goal. Other than that every nation should be viewed as an adversary. And you know as well as I, you must always plan based on their capabilities not their intentions that the State Department imagines them to be.

      • Pete Morin says:

        I understand what you mean by implacable. It will be harder to find such an individual with a similar kind of CnC that currently occupies the White House. Such an occupant must have America’s best interests in mind when dealing with foreign powers.

  3. ramcclain says:

    I just posted this comment over at Canada Free Press. I also shared on my Facebook with similar comments.
    “I think this is an excellent idea. However, with the direction our military is headed now, especially the now-very political hierarchy, this could also be a problem. I would certainly not want JC Dempsey as Sec. of State. He has been a terrible JC, but then that’s what this regime wants. For some time now, once an officer gets ‘up there’ it has been more politics than actual service/actions that have seen them continually promoted. It has definitely become a real ‘good ole boys’ club’. In my lifetime I have literally watched the destruction of the finest military in the world by selfish, greedy politicians. I do hope this will change…………….”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s