In the rush to take advantage of the the "gotcha" moment, we should not overlook the opportunity to understand thoroughly the thinking that underlies the occasional absurd comment from Sen. McCain. Now, I am as outraged as are most of us at McCain's comments; his words are abominable. How can a U.S. Senator, running for President and Commander-in-Chief, make a statement that petitions for an a "safe" military theater in Iraq at the expense of even considering a timetable for withdrawal or our troops? How can he be so callous? As painful as these words are to the thousands of family members of our armed forces and members of the thinking public, they represent not a "gaffe" but a window on McCain's thinking about Iraq and the in fact the purpose if military intervention.

McCain's comments belie a very narrow view of what's going on  in Iraq, and of the purpose of American intervention in general. If one peels back the layers of McCain's comments, what appears is rather straightforward: McCain pines for a kind of military
Shangri-La in Iraq. He wants a military presence there where no one is killed, injured, or hurt; where soldiers welcomed
with flowers and chocolates; where peace coexists with honor. He fairly states this outright when he compares Iraq (mindbogglingly so), with post-war Japan, demilitarized
Korea, and Allied-divided Germany. These allusions make no sense to the thinking electorate. How can one compare a post-war occupied zone with an active theater in an ongoing military campaign? As one can surmise from this, McCain's is a fantastic military vision. He
wants Iraq to be an American outpost. He wants a bloodless operation. He wants a military and moral victory. He doesn't want to leave Iraq until everyone knows we WON, and is
convinced we went in to do the RIGHT THING. Even his interpretation of what Gen. Petraeus can possibly accomplish, i.e. safe withdrawal when the time is right, i.e. when we declare victory, belies the narrowness of McCain's thinking.

McCain, who attended War College as a relatively low-ranking officer, continues to think small when the nation needs its civilian leader to think big. McCain's conceptualizes war from the point of view of the soldier and not the commander. In his words there are no careful considerations of our
geopolitical stature, our long term military readiness, or of our diving
headfirst into an unwinnable war. There are no musings about the war's effects on our long-term relations with the
Mideast or partners in peace. There is no real talk of economic or human impact of war.

Just as a soldier is revered for focussing on victory, bravery courage and single-mindedness, a commander is respected for zeroing in on strategy, wider considerations, and the human price paid for war. McCain proves how difficult it is to hold these two very distinct mindsets at once.

His is just the
soldier's credo to carry on when told to march. I pity him; his
narrow-mindedness is overarching.