Gore will work to prevent crises

During the second debate, Democratic candidate Al Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush spent a great deal of time addressing foreign policy, an issue about which the candidates have distinct differences.\nGore and Bush show their differences most clearly on foreign policy matters when discussing the use of peace-keeping forces to help stabilize potentially volatile regions of the world.\nSaturday, Vice President Gore and Secretary of State Madeline Albright questioned the proposal of the Republican Party's nominee to withdraw peacekeeping troops from the Balkans. Democrats believe in using the military in strategic areas around the world to prevent violence and war. It seems Republicans would rather wait for war to break out, and then use our troops in more dangerous situations. \n The Balkans is an area of Europe that saw a proliferation of violence and killing when the former Yugoslavia began breaking up in 1992, with individual provinces declaring independence. Ethnic hatred between Serbs and Albanians was once again witnessed when then-president Slobodan Milosevic used his police and military forces to massacre thousands of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.\nRight now there are peace keepers from several European countries and the United States on the ground in Kosovo and throughout the once war-torn region. They are there to prevent war and conflict in a region of strategic importance to the United States and our European allies. Pulling out of that region now could lead to further violence and a return to ethnic cleansing. And United States troops would be faced with an even worse situation when called back. \n"Bush's proposal would be more than a major untested shift in America's foreign policy for the last half-century," Gore told supporters at a rally Saturday. "It would be one that could jeopardize fragile alliances. It would be a damaging blow to NATO."\nThe Balkans is but one example of the strategic engagement Democrats believe the United States should use, along with our allies around the world. The isolationistic Republicans preference would allow continued violence and unrest in areas around the world where we have an interest in preventing conflict. Bush has made "repeated statements that American troops should not be used in peacekeeping missions and should instead concentrate their efforts on preparing to fight wars in places like the Persian Gulf and the Korean peninsula," according to the New York Times.\nIs that what we want for foreign policy? War over peace? Clearly a Gore-Lieberman policy of engagement in strategic areas to prevent violence, while maintaining a strong military ready for any conflict, is far superior to the other team's plans to get the United States ready for another round of Korean and Gulf Wars.\nMaintaining a strong military is a key aspect of this peace-keeping use of our troops. Gore will provide the resources, technology and manpower to engage to do so. Gore will also:\n• Reward men and women in uniform with competitive salary and benefits\n• Reform military housing\n• Improve family services, including day care services and educational opportunities for children in military families\n• Invest in health care by fully funding the military health care system\n• Increase the investment in technology and hardware\n• Maintain the United States' nuclear strength\n"Today, the U.S. has the best-trained, best-equipped, most capable fighting force in the world. Al Gore will continue to strengthen the world's greatest military force by investing in people, deploying the most advanced technology, transforming the force to meet future challenges and transforming the Pentagon," according to Gore's Web site.\nGore offers a strong military and a peaceful world, by looking forward and establishing clear military objectives for our men and women in uniform.