John McCain: An Act of Belligerency?
Doug Bandow has a hard-hitting critique of John McCain over at AntiWar.com. McCain opponents will find it one of the best compilations of tightly wound reasons to agitate against John McCain getting the keys to the White House and the codes to the "football."
But in the piece, Bandow also notes that McCain used to be a "reluctant warrior." This is absolutely true. I have known John McCain for years -- ever since he served on the Advisory Board of the Nixon Center of which I was the founding executive director. John McCain was not timid when it came to appropriate applications of force, but he also demonstrated a facility for strategic calculation which meant that there were usually never yes-no, bomb-don't bomb, binary decisions but gray zone and nuanced realities to any decision.
McCain used to be the kind of leader I thought would be Nixonian in his core -- and frankly, I'd feel better about Obama or Hillary Clinton if either demonstrated more of the foreign policy skill sets that a Richard Nixon had. But McCain seems to have rejected Nixonian approaches to enlightened American self-interest in the world and has become a crusader for a new phase of neoconservative-inspired interventionism.
Or alternatively, perhaps McCain's acts of belligerency are all an act?
From Bandow's provocative McCain critique:
John McCain is a man of experience, courage, and honor, but they are overshadowed by his vices, such as his angry temperament, his tendency to go postal against his Senate colleagues, questioning their intelligence and principles when they disagree with him. We should expect better of someone entrusted with control of the strongest military on earth.McCain's sanctimonious certainty is another problem. In one of the Republican debates he declared "I'm the expert" on Iraq. Yet on his most recent trip to Iraq he confused Iraq and Iran, denouncing the latter, a Shi'ite state, for training al-Qaeda, made up of Sunnis, and had to be corrected by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was standing nearby at the obligatory press conference on the "nonpolitical" trip. Will Sen. Lieberman move into the White House along with the McCains to hover near the phone at 3am?
McCain similarly appears to share George Bush's simplistic view of the world. Both see America threatened by numerous enemies who are all alike - al-Qaeda members, secular dictators, Palestinian terrorists, Baathist insurgents, Shia nationalists, Hezbollah fighters, Taliban fundamentalists, Hamas activists. McCain told an audience at the Virginia Military Institute last year: The Iraq war "is part of a broader struggle in the Arab and Muslim world, the struggle between violent extremists and the forces of modernity and moderation." The extremists, he adds, "wish to return the world to the 7th century."
Actually, most Iraqi insurgents want to drive America out of their country. Most al-Qaeda terrorists want to punish the U.S. government for appearing to wage war on Muslims - in Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Most Hamas and Hezbollah fighters want to defend their respective homelands from Israeli intervention, backed by America. Lots of other people simply want the U.S. to stop interfering in their affairs. "They" all hate America, but for very different reasons.
Perhaps McCain sees no need to sweat the small stuff, like the facts. After all, he assures the American people, "the war will be over soon." Rather like Vice President Richard Cheney's claim - three years ago - that the insurgency is "in the last throes."
However, the biggest problem with McCain is his philosophy. Sen. McCain once was a reluctant warrior, balking at intervention in Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and even Iraq the first time. Today he is the most belligerent of the original 2008 presidential contenders, except, perhaps, for Rudy Giuliani. If there is a war in the world, McCain can be counted on to join it. And if one doesn't exist, he is determined to start it.
America should not run from wars it absolutely cannot avoid -- but to seek them out is national lunacy.
-- Steve Clemons
Can we stop with the ridiculous notion that Richard Nixon was some sort of foreign policy genius? He was as corrupt abroad as he was at home and left us with a history in Central and South America that's nothing but bloodletting, democracy ending and despot pumping. Kissinger is nothing but an unindicted war criminal, as Christopher Hitchens has ably proven. Praising Nixon's foreign policy is such an absurd thing to do that's it's hard for me to take anything else you're saying seriously.
March 21, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richard Nixon, in spite of all the shame he brought to the presidency, had the wisdom and the vision to understand the implications of reaching out to China in the midst of the Cold War. Nixon's strategy was not to condition rapprochement with any specific demands from China yet the benefits of his outreach are today colossal in the international scenario.
It is unfortunate that Hillary has not learned the historical lesson that quite often the rapprochement, discussions, and negotiations oftentimes precede policy changes of a geopolitical adversary. Clearly, in the case of McCain, nuance was not going to help him with his Republican base. It is difficult not to conclude that these two highly sophisticated statespeople have abandoned their better judgment for sake of triangulation.
March 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
Much as I respect your opinion, like destor23, I question Nixon strategic intelligence. I think to some extent he had it, but like his entire approach to governing, his foreign policy was held hostage to what was best for Richard Nixon and his ability to gain and retain power.
It seems to me that his and Kissinger's decision to extend the Viet Nam war into Cambodia only should mark him forever as a rank failure; it helped set up Pol Pot's ability to conduct the horror of the Cambodian genocide.
Let's not forget, too, that more than half of American troop deaths in that war happened during the period Nixon was telling us that he was in the process of ending the war. And what about his policy toward Allende, and his embrace of Pinochet? He never stopped being the red baiter of American liberals and Democrats when it was convenient.
And before anyone asks, what about his opening to China, nothing makes me angrier than the trope of Nixon in China, i.e., it took a Nixon to change our policy toward China precisely because it was Nixon himself who would have sought to crucify, politically speaking, any political opponent who had done the same thing, or even talked about doing it. Why is that okay?
Why was it okay for Republicans to attack Hillary Clinton, when she was first lady, for saying that everyone knows that the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian problem has to be a two-state solution, and then for George Bush to present his road-map, with not a murmur from Republicans or the press, and don't we know how both the press and the Republicans, if a Democrat is elected in November, will respond if Obama or Clinton try to reengage any sort of peace proess, without which, we will never solve the problem of Islamic terrorism or be able to help the countries of the Middle East find some sort of stability.
Granted, no one, including the neo-cons thought for a moment that anyone was serious about the road-map, especially since Bush made his declaration in the midst of Sharon's invasion of the West Bank in 2001-2002, and I'm sure that the neo-cons were similarly appeased by Condi Rice's proclamation that the most recent bombing and invasion of Lebanon by the Israelis were mere birth pangs of a new Middle East, policies which John McCain has supported without demurrals of any kind.
And for all McCain's bluster about his having criticized the Bush administration, my take is that they are often self-serving, and that he deserves to share the blame for the on-going disaster of our decision to invade Iraq.
Sorry for the long comment, but I'd like to add this final point.
We have evidence of McCain's poor foreign policy chops from the Kosovo military action; yes, McCain claimed to support Clinton's decision that doing something about Serbian ethnic cleansing of the Kosovar Muslims was of strategic importance, but he insisted, in TV interview after TV interview, that the Clinton administration had made a crucial error in not thinking big enough and that without ground troops, there was no way we could succeed, and that we should have made, as part of our war aims, the taking down Milosevic. Given our current press corps, he was treated as some sort of foreign policy guru, and not one interviewer that I saw ever asked McCain how he proposed to keep NATO engaged in the action against Serbia, when it was clear that NATO could not have stayed united if there had been an actual invasion of either Kosovo or Serbia, so I can't honestly say that McCain would have been happy going it alone, but McCain seemed as fine with the unilateral option as George Bush has proved to be. I also think there is a good chance McCain might prove as indifferent to expert opinion as George Bush has been. His role in the run-up to the Iraq invasion suggests just that, doesn't it?
March 21, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding comment and rebuttal.
March 21, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that. There was nary a pundit to be found who didn’t say that a war could never be fought with air power alone. And I’d add that Nixon was a narcissistic paranoiac with a petty criminal mind as opposed to a brilliant strategist (but he was not a crook). Steve, have you listened to the tapes?
March 21, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain used to be the kind of leader I thought would be Nixonian in his core -- and frankly, I'd feel better about Obama or Hillary Clinton if either demonstrated more of the foreign policy skill sets that a Richard Nixon had.
You mean the Nixon that escalated the war in Vietnam and bombed Cambodia? That Nixon? Please, we can do without that kind of "foreign polcy skill set."
March 21, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leah,
You get a "5+" for that.
(We used to have a 0-5 rating system.)
March 21, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is getting old. Ever since LBJ we get the same song about how the Republican is going to start a war, nuke or otherwise.
March 21, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain seems to have rejected Nixonian approaches to enlightened American self-interest in the world
Does Steve mean Nixonian "approaches" like carpet bombing civilian population centers to terrorize foreign governments into submitting to US demands? Or secretly invading neutral countries without authorization from Congress? Or covertly arranging for the overthrow of democratically elected leaders and their replacement by military juntas?
He needs to clarify.
March 21, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Or alternatively, perhaps McCain's acts of belligerency are all an act?"
You think that McCain is that good of an actor that he can bluff the bellicose when he can't even remember/understand that Iran is Shiite and Al Qaeda is Sunni?
March 21, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who thinks that the trouble with our foreign policy is some kind of monumental misunderstanding due to corrupt leaders is missing the big picture. Yes there are such things as foreign policy mistakes; namely those that do not advance the long-term interests of the United States. Nixon's China Policy was not one of them.
March 21, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bandow's article doesn't mention Afghanistan once. McCain supported diverting nearly all of our resources away from wiping out the al Qaeda leadership. But Dems never mention that, so McCain is still seen as stronger on bin Laden, as reflected by this Fox poll http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Fox_poll_McCain_strongest_against_Bin_0320.html (highlighted by the Center for American Progress, I don't read Fox)
Yes, Americans agree that Iraq was a mistake. We took the wrong hill. We dug in and Bush (and McCain) diverted nearly all of our resources to it. But most voters recognize that we can't just up and leave. Powell's "you break it you own it" is not an apt analogy. We don't own Iraq, we gave most of it to al Qaeda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and we can't just wish that away.
March 22, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, at the risk of being Captain Obvious, I'll point out that not wiping out the al Qaeda and Taliban leadership has predictably allowed them to destabilize Pakistan. That's a much bigger threat to the US and world than Iraq ever posed.
I wasn't complaining that diverting resources away from wiping out al Qaeda's leadership failed to satisfy our desire for justice (although obviously it did fail).
March 22, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is one Dem who does talk about the distraction and resource diversion which is Iraq.
Says Obama:
"Above all, the war in Iraq has emboldened al Qaeda, whose recruitment has jumped and whose leadership enjoys a safe-haven in Pakistan – a thousand miles from Iraq.
"The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
March 22, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
AdAbsurdum - You're right, and that's why I'm an Obama supporter. I wish more in the media would focus on McCain's record on Afghanistan and Pakistan (which is essentially surrendering them to terrorists).
Steve wrote that Bandow's piece is "one of the best compilations" of arguments against McCain, but the article doesn't have the word Afghanistan in it.
March 22, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nixon Center of which I was the founding executive director.
You do not cease to surprise.
Anent the object of your study, I have had occasion to miss his paranoid, tortured Quaker ass in view of contemporary successors.
It is a commonplace that Nixon would have cut off his hand before signing the "Turn Mothers and Babies Out on the Streets Welfare Act" or the "Gut Habeas Corpus and Spit in the Eye of Magna Carta Effective Death Penalty Act".
Clinton was right of Nixon on most important domestic issues, including (save us Jesus!) Civil Liberties
March 23, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Major ERROR Dude
you said mccain could get the "Codes To The Football"
that's TOTALLY WRONG
you don't need "codes to the football"
The "FOOTBALL" is the bag that has the codes IN IT
so mccain could get "The Codes In The Football"
but he can't get "The Codes To The Football"
you might think it's a small detail, but you become an expert by a process of collecting the small detail and building a mosaic. If your details are bogus, your mosaic is bogus
and every word an phrase counts
March 23, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Nixon Center of which I was the founding executive director."
Steve,
McCain scares me - but Nixon Center? You have got to be kidding me. The Nixon who wanted to use nukes at Dienbienphu and again in Vietnam when he was President? That Nixon? Steve, you need to publicly say that you made a mistake or you have lost your credibility with me.
March 24, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink