McCain's Dangerous Vision

[rollhead]

McCain's Dangerous Vision
From American Progress Center


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will deliver two major speeches today to prominent conservative political groups -- GOPAC and the Federalist Society -- in what is being billed as his assessment of the current state of conservatism and "how he would lead it." For an American public that just recently registered its utter dissatisfaction with the current course in Iraq, McCain's prescription for the future will be extremely unsatisfying. He has repeatedly called for an increase in U.S. troop levels, isolating himself from most national security experts and U.S. generals in Iraq. Yesterday, Gen. John Abizaid, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, rejected McCain’s calls for increased U.S. troop levels, informing him that he “met with every divisional commander, Gen. [George] Casey, the core commander, Gen. [Martin] Dempsey” and asked them if bringing “in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said ‘no.’” Escalation in Iraq would be a disastrous course for our nation's strategic security interests. Moreover, the overstretched American military does not have the manpower to provide more troops in Iraq. "He would just repeat the mistake of Vietnam," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. "If McCain refuses to acknowledge that some wars can become simply unwinnable, he may be exposing a weakness in his thinking that ultimately deprives him of the presidency."

WESTMORELAND REDUX: Echoing the failed strategy of the escalation during the Vietnam War, McCain has suggested that putting more troops into the middle of Iraq’s anarchic civil war would help the U.S. to ultimately prevail. Like Gen. William Westmoreland before him, who during the Vietnam War confidently declared victory and led the American military buildup in that country (from 20,000 troops in early 1964 to approximately 500,000 during the 1968 Tet Offensive), McCain risks shattering public confidence and undermining the resolve to fight the much broader war against global terror networks. Beyond the practical unfeasibility of sending in more forces, McCain misdiagnoses what adding more troops at this point would do to the situation on the ground in Iraq. As the Center for American Progress’s Iraq redeployment strategy argues, "A more visible presence of U.S. troops risks further stoking the flames of the insurgency by feeding perceptions of long-term U.S. occupation among many Iraqis." Commanders in Iraq have acknowledged that the recent effort to increase troop numbers in Baghdad only increased violence. A recent poll of Iraqis indicated that support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position -- now six in ten -- a number sure to increase if McCain were to get his way.

FOR RUMSFELD'S STRATEGY BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT: McCain's call for increasing troop levels in Iraq comes three years too late. As former administration officials and military generals have noted, a larger initial force was necessary to provide security on the ground and prevent the growth of the insurgency. Prior to the Iraq war, outgoing Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld argued for going in with substantially lower troop numbers than the prior Gulf War, a position which then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki publicly disputed. In October 2002, McCain was asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews about troop levels. McCain said at the time, "I believe that the kind of technology and the kind of military that we have today doesn't require massive numbers of troops. You might have noticed the conflict in Afghanistan, we had a few soldiers on the ground and used very incredibly accurate air power." As the Iraq occupation played out, it became increasingly clear that Rumsfeld and McCain were wrong and Shinseki was right. Yesterday, Abizaid testified, "Gen. Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution -- U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution -- should have been available immediately after major combat operations." McCain has conveniently forgotten that he endorsed an occupation strategy that would not require "massive numbers of troops." A year ago, he said he had “no confidence” in Rumsfeld, "citing his handling of the war in Iraq and the failure of the Pentagon to send more troops."

AN UNSUSTAINABLE STRATEGY: In a September 2006 op-ed in the Washington Post, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and National Review editor Rich Lowry laid the foundation for McCain's escalation strategy. "More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment," they wrote. In a Financial Times op-ed earlier this week, Kristol joined with his Weekly Standard colleague Robert Kagan in arguing for "increasing U.S. troops in Iraq by at least 50,000 in order to clear and hold Baghdad," perhaps attempting to make McCain's proposal for a 20,000 troop increase appear more reasonable. Outside of proposing the reinstitution of the military draft, the McCain-Kristol position is practically unfeasible because the U.S. military is already overstretched. "We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect. But when you look at the overall American force pool that`s available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps," Abizaid said. Earlier this year, incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), said, "Army readiness is in crisis. ... Today two-thirds of the brigade combat teams in our operating force are unready." Center for American Progress national security analysts Lawrence Korb and Peter Ogden noted, "When one combines this news with the fact that roughly one-third of the active Army is deployed (and thus presumably ready for combat), the math is simple but the answer alarming: The active Army has close to zero combat-ready brigades in reserve." The National Guard is “in an even more dire situation than the active Army.” Lowry, possibly reflecting the thinking of McCain, said, "People would react favorably" to escalating troop levels in Iraq. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that only 17 percent of Americans support increasing force levels.

MCCAIN BELIEVED WE WOULD BE GREETED AS 'LIBERATORS': As the violence in Iraq has intensified, McCain has tried to distance himself from his own previous positions. In August, McCain generated headlines for criticizing the Bush administration's happy talk. McCain said that talk “has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.” McCain was certainly not among those who "understood from the very beginning" that Iraq would be a difficult endeavor. In fact, just days before the invasion of Iraq was launched, he was asked directly about how he believed the conflict would play out. On MSNBC's Hardball (3/12/03), Matthews asked, "Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?" McCain responded, "Absolutely. Absolutely." Just a few days later, McCain appeared again on Hardball (3/24/03), and defiantly proclaimed, "There’s no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there’s no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators."

[jesus marion joseph]

IMHO, the only reason Vietnam was "unwinnable" is because Westmoreland was running it for so long. As soon as the focus shifted from "body count" to "clear and hold", we made progress. Unfortunately, it was too late by then. Whether "clear and hold" has any application in Iraq, I don't know. I tend to think that Iraq may, indeed, be "unwinnable" by any conventional measure of the term.

[Scott Dolan]

Whether "clear and hold" has any application in Iraq, I don't know.

It would if we had the proper number of troops to execute it. But they clear and hold one area, then get shipped to another to do the same and the previous area goes to shit.

[groover]

One of the criticisms of Rumsfeld's approach is that he tried to run the war like a modern business, with the minimalist "just-in-time" philosophy.

My experience is only with computer battle simulations, but assuming they are reasonably accurate, overwhelming force is the best approach. The greater your advantage in numbers, the lower your losses are, and the quicker the opponent succumbs.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by groover

My experience is only with computer battle simulations, but assuming they are reasonably accurate, overwhelming force is the best approach. The greater your advantage in numbers, the lower your losses are, and the quicker the opponent succumbs.

I'm guessing that McCain is advocating that approach. I can't imagine, based upon his experience in Vietnam, that he wants to send in more tropps for a prolonged period. But I could be wrong.

[Scott Dolan]

McCain is simply advocating one of the only two possible solutions for the Iraq situation. Mostly because it's more popular with the Republican party than trying to bring Iran and Syria to the table. Because if they do, the main course will be crow.

[Dr Dave]

I think McCain may be right. The problem is, we can send more troops either by greatly reducing our military presence somewhere else, or by instituting a draft.

It would take some serious moral suasion--which will not be forthcoming from this President--to convince Americans that we need a draft because we have to fix a hideous mistake we made.

So we will probably leave as precipitously as we arrived, and like they say, tragedy will be played out again, this time as farce...what a bummer for the Iraqi people.

And in the end, what do you know, Shinseki was right, and Rummy was wrong, and we'll all cluck-cluck about it, just like we cluck-cluck because OJ's reward for admitting he murdered his wife is a big royalty check, and what else is new?

[Gary Sisco]

Vietnam was unwinnable because the Vietnamese were willing -- and did -- fight for as long as it took to achieve victory as they defined it, no matter how many casualties it took. They knew all along that there would come a day when the war was too costly (politically and in blood) for the US to continue and that therefore there would come a day when the US would bag on it. And it did.

They had, in short, a political goal, a strategy for attaining it, and tactics that fit into and moved along their strategy. In other words, they had everything that the US did not, then or now in Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter).

It was a war of attrition but the US never did figure out that it was the Vietnamese waging a war of attrition against the US and not the other way around.

The only ways the US could have "won" were: use of the nukes or what would have amounted to genocide.

Several million were killed as it was.

[Gary Sisco]

There was a short time during the run-up to the 2000 elections when I thought that perhaps McCain was a man of principle. I even voted for him in the Repugnant primary that year (albeit as a way of voting against Bush).

He's since revealed himself as an opportunist on a scale with anyone in DC, which is saying quite a lot in itself. His principles are decided by the way the wind seems to be blowing from one week to the next.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

His principles are decided by the way the wind seems to be blowing from one week to the next.

That's why the left-media loves him so.

[Gary Sisco]

One of the things I find entertaining in a futile kind of way about contemporary life in the US is how right-wingers get to tell a leftist what a left is and isn't. I've found this entertaining for decades now, even when there actually was one still, if only in remnant form. In Burlington I used to get the same commentaries from the other side from pinko trustfunders, no less, telling me what reason this or that or the other thing I was doing or thinking wasn't correct. So, I used to tease them about how when the revolution come, of course their trustfund will disappear. You should have seen them sitting down 'pon their nest eggs then, to protect them.

My favorite of all responses was "My grandfather worked hard for that money."

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

One of the things I find entertaining in a futile kind of way about contemporary life in the US is how right-wingers get to tell a leftist what a left is and isn't.

and vice-versa.

[Gary Sisco]

True, except for the trustfunder episodes. You have to admit it's an ironic place to be, intellectually, when literal children of the bourgeoisie, literally living off of the work of others, argue with one over the correctness of a position, from a leftist p.o.v. I've encountered entire families of "socialists" who haven't had reason to work for a generation or two or even three. Never mind being lectured by them about the working class and so forth.

The trouble today with this use of left and right is, one, it's ahistorical, and, two, is a leftover cookie-cutter "paradigm" from the Cold War period, which is over, already.

It is ahistorical because the historical left, no matter which faction of tendency, had certain identifiable features, the most obvious one being an opposition, both political and intellectual, not just to this or that corporate practice. Such thinking as that was left by the left to liberals to deal with. What marked the left, any left, was an opposition to capitalism and the capitalist social order *themselves.* It was opposed to the form of society itself.

Now, go ahead and try to convince me that Media, Inc, any of it, in the US is leftist by any historical standard.

The Cold War's absence has not been accompanied yet by a new lens through which people view the world. Hence the idiotic use of the terms left and right in regard to Iraq, for example. Most of the most radical, historically left people I know were in fact in support of the war. Some still are.

We need a new lens and a new nomenclature but history always moves faster than humans' ability to intellectually adjust themselves to new conditions. So, the words left and right now have become mere (and mistaken) adjectives meant to denote a relative position on this or that issue or "spectrum." Which is one way of using the terms of course but it can bear little if any relation to use of the word left in its historical place, which is the only place it exists, today.

Calling people like the leadership of the Dim party leftists, to a leftist, is gutbusting funny, actually. The left, when there was one, never did. The notion would not have occurred to it, even. In all of my years in the left I can't remember even a serious discussion of things in terms of dim or repub, who was pres or who not, and so forth. Those weren't issues for us but rather things that were taken for granted as aspects of bourgeois society. Nothing more.

So, the way the words are used today, as adjectives implying a mere relativity on a self-defining "spectrum," just sounds idiotic to a leftist. It's howlingly funny.

Minimally, every historical left, regardless of faction or tendency, has shared the following defining aspects:

1. Opposition to capitalism and its social order, which of course includes its state institutions and politics, regardless of party or anything else. It exists outside the "spectrum" of politics in bourgeois society because it has different goals.

2. Support of some form or other of public, collective ownership of the economy (which sort would have been and was an object of much argumentation but there would have been no argument about the thing itself) -- not at all necessarily state ownership.

It would be absurd, from the point of view of a left, any left, therefore, to use the word in relation to anything at all in the dominant society's economics or politics.

[Sandi22]

We were told by the fellows who served in Vietnam, that if you wanted to survive, ride the Standard Oil train, that it was never hit. We were also told our military was held back in lots of instances because of wanting to keep options open at the negotiating table; that if we were to commit troops into certain actions, negotiations would be harmed, perhaps ended. So winning wasn't in the cards. Containment seemed to be what they were trying to accomplish, (that and a position of strength, not as total victors), once in negotiations; not my ideas, but of the fellows we knew who were there. We were also told there was a general, one who did everything up right, according to his men, but he wasn't a darling with the Pentagon so his requests for needed equipment and helicopters weren't always heard, or acted on, whereas. another general, whom the troops had a low opinion of, got all he asked for, and then some. Hearsay, but coming from some pretty bright guys who were there, it seems a distinct possibility.

Kindof off subject, but winning and losing are what is being talked about and Vietnam was a no win misguided undertaking, as much as Iraq is. In Iraq though, there is even more to lose. "The Prize" tells us that the war in Vietnam was for South East Asian drilling rights as much as anything, and like Ted Koppel said on Meet the Press this morning, don't kid yourself, "the war in Iraq is about Oil", nothing else, no matter what we're being told. Not sure of the exact quote, but this is the gist of it; totally.

Where John McCain might take us in all of this sounds a bit like he might continue on, wanting a victory, one which many of us believe isn't in the cards, not the way the administration laid the groundwork for this debachle. They screwed up so, that there isnt' a way to put everything on the right track, as, we are hated by too many in the region, not just in Iraq. We lost the victory, and now we are involved in a civil war which will only escalate regardless of troop increases, or at least this is how it looks to me. This could unravel like no one can begin to imagine, and if it does, Ted Koppel believes the economic consequences will hit the world like we've never seen before. Man, has this administration ever done a number on us! It will take some really great diplomacy and policies to protect us from what very well could come down on all of us in a flash. We're not on cable, but Ted Koppels documentary looks to be so interesting, a two hour show on the Discovery Channel. Wish we could get it.

[patricia]

I saw the Koppel interview as well, Sandi and what I found interesting was his statement that children were being indoctrinated to hate America. His contention that by repeating slogans like "death to America" was proof of this brainwashing.

How different is that from the repeating by rote by elementary school students of the Pledge of Allegiance, or the Declaration of Independance, or the constant claim of superiority of American values being the only valid ones?
My youngest daughter attended highschool in CA and was puzzled by their never discussing any history other than that of the U.S.
Any world history she learned was by going out on her own, reading about it. She commented that it wasn't surprising to her that Americans knew little of the Middle East before 9/11. Most didn't have any knowledge of Iraq's culture and politics before the invasion in '03, as a segue from Afghanistan.

Robin Wright, during the same interview talked about the average Iranians wanting nuclear plants to produce energy. It's about world status, not necessarily having a bomb to threaten their neighbours.

Both agreed that it is futile to think that the U.S. can actually prevent Iran from developing nuclear energy.

The idea that Iran will abandon their nuclear ambitions before the Americans will even talk to them is, IMO, doomed to failure.
If Iran demanded that the U.S. abandon their nuclear program as a condition for talks, that would obviously be a non-starter.
The Americans are not offering to dismantle their nuclear programs, are they?


Iran sees India, Pakistan, Israel, and others, as well as of course the U.S. with a thriving nuclear proliferation stance within their countries and don't understand why they cannot have that too. It's not about having a bomb so much as it is to move onto an industrial level playing field, by having nuclear power.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Originally Posted by patricia

I saw the Koppel interview as well, Sandi and what I found interesting was his statement that children were being indoctrinated to hate America. His contention that by repeating slogans like "death to America" was proof of this brainwashing.

How different is that from the repeating by rote by elementary school students of the Pledge of Allegiance, or the constant claim of superiority of American values being the only valid ones?

The latter is an attempt to instill pride in ones country. The former is the promotion of killing based on religion or race.

No difference?

[Sandi22]

I don't understand what is happening in our schools, our daughters children go to school in California now Patricia, and it's a strange situation they're finding themselves in. The parents of children in this backwater town are buying expensive gifts for teachers, and doing all sorts of things for them to insure good grades and glowing private files on their children, so that they will get into the better schools, once they graduate highschool. I'm talking grade school here, not highschool. Children in public school. Their parents going over the top; so how is this even legal? Morally it's wrong, if not deemed illegal by state law. Surely there must be bi-laws of the school, accepted or unaccepted behaviours. Teachers accepting expensive gifts shouldn't be an accepted practice. Sidetracked here, but the talk of California schools reminded me of this.

We had teachers who taught us about other country's. We had to learn about Europe, Australia, Russia, China, Japan, Korea, Spain, and their geography, etc, but very little was ever taught about Indo China, Indonesia, Burma, etc. We knew of them, but very little, and there wasn't much done to teach us about them at all, except to point them out. We just weren't taught much about them.

Some teachers were absolutely fantastic, and others, well they took a slide, even having us check and grade papers from other classes. We had teachers who had lived and studied in Europe and they would bring in photo's, sometimes presenting slide shows with notes they'd prepared on the history of the country. One principal had lived in Panama and her presentation was fascinating, as she was such a compelling lady herself, and she really let us in on the Panamanian culture, and social happenings which she and her husband were involved in while living there. Wish there were more like her and a few others, then we would all be a lot better informed. They knew how to instill curiosity and excitement.

I loved saying the "Pledge of Allegiance", of course we were hoping to save our flag and thereby us, This when I was little as there was WWII and then there was the Korean scare, this when I was a bit older, so our flag to our way of thinking stood for something - all that we were getting from living in our country - but when they inserted "Under God", it seemed to me we were out to intimidate him. By adding that, how could he not defend our survival? We were making sure of our safety, it seemed. I felt a bit of shame over that being added, like we were subjugating God.

Anyway, I wish I could see that documentary, it should really be interesting.

[patricia]

Sandi, the documentary is being shown on the Discovery Channel this evening I believe.

JW, you might want to examine the lyrics of your National Anthem if you don't think that militarism is at the heart of your culture.
"We're #1" and "U.S.A., U.S.A.!!!" chanted at every opportunity is an arrogant slogan, which angers other countries, rather than encouraging them to think of your country as a member of the world community.
Remember, other countries don't chant "We're #2" etc. They have national pride as well.

[Sandi22]

I grew up during the wars and know what it is you're saying, but that USA chant isn't thought of like that by most Americans, not how other people in other countries think of it, how they think it is. I believe, (not that I speak for everyone), that the USA chant started out as a counter to the Soviet block and feeling our teams and individual atheletes were so unfairly treated by the Olympics during the cold war, that it was used to pump them up by the ones in the stands, and it just carried over. Look at how crazy our sports fans are over our own pro teams here in the states, it's not always pretty, but it seems that sometimes more is read into our behavior than is actually there.

No, I know we're militaristic, and I remember the wars in different ways, WWII as pretty scary and necessary, Korea, with a bit of confusion, and fear, Vietnam as a sham and Iraq as another one altogether, and then there were the other skirmishes, Panama and Grenada, a confusing bit of history with them. Active war games? Cover up? (this in the case of Panama). It all makes one wonder. I see the last two as a question mark.

I don't get that channel Patricia, only antenna programs, not cable or dish.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Originally Posted by patricia

JW, you might want to examine the lyrics of your National Anthem if you don't think that militarism is at the heart of your culture.
"We're #1" and "U.S.A., U.S.A.!!!" chanted at every opportunity is an arrogant slogan, which angers other countries, rather than encouraging them to think of your country as a member of the world community.
Remember, other countries don't chant "We're #2" etc. They have national pride as well.

National pride is quite different from programming Muslim children from a very early age to believe the infidels must be killed, the Jews are pigs and swine, blowing yourself up is the ultimate if you end up taking some infidels with you, women are property instead of people with rights, etc.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

National pride is quite different from programming Muslim children from a very early age to believe the infidels must be killed, the Jews are pigs and swine, blowing yourself up is the ultimate if you end up taking some infidels with you, women are property instead of people with rights, etc.

No argument there. But the bad behavior of others doesn't justify our own. Ever since 9/11, we've been led by people who don't really believe in governing, who have encouraged us to be at our worst, who have shown the rest of the world the back of the hand.

Or as my man Larry Raspberry once declaimed:

"If you're looking at the world and wondering why there's something wrong with everyone but you, WAKE UP. You're a JIVE ASS."

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Or as my man Larry Raspberry once declaimed:

"If you're looking at the world and wondering why there's something wrong with everyone but you, WAKE UP. You're a JIVE ASS."

Thank you for passing on the wisdom of Larry Raspberry, Dr Dave.
I lived in your country for several years and miss the dear friends I met while there.
My sadness over how America is perceived by other countries now, because of recent events is deep and genuine.
I certainly didn't mean to say that all Americans are, to use Larry's expression, jive asses. The events of the last six years have painted a picture of who Americans are that is skewed. I know no people who live there as being like the fools who make up the present administration.
They are as frustrated as am I.
At least that's what they tell me.

As my late dad used to say, "You stay out of trouble in other countries the same way as you stay out of trouble at home. By not being an ass."
Good advice then, and now.
Too bad Bush Sr. didn't have that talk with Dubya.

[Gary Sisco]

Bad behavior justifies worse behavior these days, Doc. Get with it, already.

[Gary Sisco]

I was thinking while working yesterday that Islam is plus or minus five hundred years younger a religion than is Christianity. So I started thinking about Christianity five hundred years ago. I don't recommend it if you like the mythology of the peaceful, loving religion ....

[John P. Cooper]

Originally Posted by patricia

"We're #1" and "U.S.A., U.S.A.!!!" chanted at every opportunity is an arrogant slogan, which angers other countries, rather than encouraging them to think of your country as a member of the world community.

I hear it chanted a lot on the street and in stores and restaurants and schools all the time. Much spontanaeous chanting. I try and reason with them to chant that "We're #2 or #3", but no one listens.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by John P. Cooper

I hear it chanted a lot on the street and in stores and restaurants and schools all the time. Much spontanaeous chanting. I try and reason with them to chant that "We're #2 or #3", but no one listens.

Thanks for the grin, John.
I guess the people you mentioned feel that if they chant it loud enough and often enough that it will be true.
Norman Vincent Peale's The Power Of Positive Thinking in action.
It would be interesting to hear those same people chant "We're #28 in Maths and Sciences internationally!!!"
[China is #1]

[Coda]

Who is 'we'? Are you American or Canadian?

[jesus marion joseph]

I saw the Koppell inerview yesterday, and I thought he was saying that the vast majority of the people in Iran mouthing the anti-American epithets were doing so with no real conviction and, in the case of young children, as a matter of rote learning, similar to the Pledge of Allegiance that we were taught when we were young. It seemed clear that his view of Iran was that the populace is far more western oriented than the government, and much more so than one might think from watching traditional news footage and reporting.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Coda

Who is 'we'? Are you American or Canadian?

Born, raised and educated in Canada. Lived in CA until June, 2001.
Canada's educational standards and test scores are higher than the U.S.'s, but only by about 20 points. China out-scored everybody.

But, don't despair. The U.S. is ahead of Jordon and Mozambique.

[jesus marion joseph]

"JOR-DAN SUCKS! JOR-DAN SUCKS! JOR-DAN SUCKS!"