Cal Thomas wrote this week, in "Nothing is Inevitable in this Race", of John McCain that "he can own the issue of national security."

To that I say: Why? Why does he own this issue? Because he served in the military, and endured undeniably horrific experiences as a POW? Because he says he's "tough on the war on terror"?

John McCain is absolutely an American hero. His story is an incredible one. He suffered horribly to serve our country. His service was honorable and incredible, hands down. But I find it a bit of a stretch to say that for those reasons, he will own the issue of national security. For one, he has no more executive experience than any of the remaining candidates. The so-called 3 am phone call will be a first for them all, one I know they will all be adeptly capable of handling. Whether you agree with how they will handle that call depends on your world view.

A National Intelligence Estimate in 2006 reported that "the continued U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has increased the threat of global terrorism by spurring radical Islam." In 2005, 52% of Americans believe the war in Iraq has made us less safe, compared with only 40% of Americans who believed it has made us safer, and countless intelligence agencies have corroborated the views of the majority of us. The 9/11 Commission Report found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Now of course, there is a noted "collaborative relationship", as John McCain so kindly pointed out to Barack Obama a few weeks back. Obama was 100% correct in pointing out to McCain that was not the case prior to our invading Iraq.

And so now we will have two candidates with markedly different views on how to keep America safe. John McCain asserts, on his website, that "A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq." (So now we're going to surge on top of the surge??) On the bright side, he acknowledges that Iraq is something that cannot be solved only with military force (a concept our current administration did not adequately plan for): "While it is crucial to focus military efforts on insurgents, particularly against Sunni fighters using violence to strengthen their political position, John McCain believes there must be a greater emphasis on non-military components promoting economic development and representative, accountable governance." He goes on to note, "The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world's energy supplies are located." At least he admits he wants the oil. Oddly, his page offers no proposals on how to approach energy, and the page on environment is vague, at best. On his National Security page, among other things, he notes that we must increase the size of the military. " For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops." From all accounts I have read, the military is having, to say the least, a hell of a time recruiting new people, so I'm not quite sure exactly how he proposes to do this.

Now here's some information from Barack Obama's website, the one who apparently has yet to cross some undefined threshold somewhere. "The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing."

So, he's going to re-engage our allies in securing the area and focus our efforts on the political, diplomatic, and humanitarian areas in which we have been, well, lacking. What a crazy notion.

"Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction."

"Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven."

He's also made a point that all the candidates have made, and yet for some reason Hillary Clinton has attacked him on this. Samantha Power, in addition to the now infamous "Monster" comment, noted that Barack’s stated plan to withdraw two battalions a month from Iraq is "the best estimate at this time, based on consultation with military. It is a firm commitment to shooting to get all the troops out in 18 months" In attempting to paint him as a flip-flopper, I have to say, she's making herself look foolish. If you honestly want a President who will not reconsider current information in making a decision on how to proceed in January of 2009 (almost a year from now), then you might has well just write in GW Bush for a third term. Personally, I find everything the woman says in the BBC interview to demonstrate a thorough, intelligent, educated and perceptive view of foreign policy. See for yourself, and don't take the words many have taken out of context to be the whole story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVzJtXab3p8

Hillary Clinton notes on her website: "As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration." But Senator Clinton, for whatever fault you may have with her, is not stupid. She knows full well the conditions in Iraq can change as rapidly as the wind, and there are certain conditions in which we may not be able to start bringing them home in the first 2 months of her presidency. That said, I believe both the Democratic candidates do want to start bringing the troops home and pursuing avenues of "success" other than military ones.

So, back to John McCain "owning national security." I for one, would love to engage in a debate over who's views have a better chance of making the world a safer one. I don't deny that his military experience will be beneficial in that field, but not to the point where it overshadows the fact that many Americans are in fact, divided on how to best keep us safe. And not just us: the military brass as well. Keep in mind, this is a man who said of the inital invasion, "I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time." Well, I for one, find that judgment...underwhelming.