The Big Picture - Foreign Policy

Although John McCain's advanced age is a clear reason not to vote for him, there are many more pressing reasons as to why he would make a terrible President.

On policy, John McCain is almost identical to George W. Bush. If you liked the last eight years of misguided wars, sluggish economic growth, rising gas prices, and growing deficits, then you'll love a McCain administration. For all his talk of being a "maverick", John McCain voted with George W. Bush 89% of the time. Even on the votes where they disagreed, such as the 2001 tax cuts, John McCain now says that Bush was right.

For now, let's discuss one of the two most important issues in this campaign -- Foreign Policy.

During his first ten years in Congress, from 1983 to about 1993, Senator John McCain was rather sensible about the use of military force. He voted against sending troops to Lebanon in 1983, and during the first Gulf War he stated: "If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood". He also supported Bill Clinton's troop withdrawal from Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident.

But for the past 15 years, McCain's views have shifted radically. He has become a strong advocate of war to solve our problems, no matter the cost in blood or treasure. Remember the Kosovo War in 1999, where our military defeated the Serbs in an air campaign without losing a single American life?  John McCain advocated not only increased bombing, but also the use of ground troops.  As the American Conservative Magazine wrote:

A “massive” bombing campaign would have accomplished little aside from inflicting untold suffering on innocent civilians and incurring the everlasting enmity of the Serbian people—and of decent people everywhere.

Yet McCain was persistent in demanding that the situation called for American “boots on the ground”—a phrase that, if you Google it, you’ll discover what might be called the McCain Panacea. To hear McCain tell it, there is apparently no crisis anywhere in the world that cannot be resolved by the presence of U.S. armed forces.

McCain called for an invasion of Iraq as early as 1998, he has been a top supporter of the current Iraq War, he has no intention of removing troops from Iraq during his administration, and he has already hinted that he looks forward to starting a war with Iran when he becomes Commander-in-Chief.



Clearly, all this talk of McCain being a warmonger is grounded in fact. If a candidate for President states that he is fine with being in Iraq for 100 years, if he sings songs about bombing Iran, if he states that withdrawal is "surrender" in his speeches, if he calls for an increase of 100,000 in our armed forces, then you have a pretty good idea of where he stands.

But it gets worse. John McCain is not just a strong advocate for more war, he is strong advocate for more Bush-style war. Which basically means counter-productive wars that fail to make us safer.

And just like Bush, McCain only becomes dovish and restrained when it comes to wars against real enemies like Osama bin Laden.

Last year, Barack Obama stated that not only would he end the war in Iraq, he would use military force to strike al Qaeda bases in Pakistan. You'd think McCain would support this fully, right?

Wrong:

Providing a potential sneak preview of his general election talking points, [McCain] asked, “Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?” The likely nominee’s comments referenced a counter-terrorism policy speech that [Barack Obama] gave in August in Washington, DC. While lamenting what he perceived as the Bush administration’s misguided war in Iraq and its distraction from al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama struck an offensive tone. “Let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains, that murdered 3,000 Americans,” he said, continuing with resolve: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-valued terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”

Obama at the time was talking about attacking known al-Qaeda terrorist targets, not suggesting mounting an attack on the country or government of Pakistan.

So let's get this straight -- McCain advocates war against Iraq and Iran, where al Qaeda does not have any bases, but denounces the bombing of Osama bin Laden's camps in Pakistan? This is exactly the same as the current Bush doctrine, which allows real enemies like al Qaeda and North Korea to fester while destroying our armies in reckless wars against trumped-up foes.

Bottom line, if you want smart foreign policy you will vote against John McCain. If you want to prevent a war against Iran you will vote against McCain. And if you want to end the war with Iraq, you must vote against McCain.

It's really that simple.