It seems to be a mantra in the media (and even in some corners of the liberal blogosphere) these days that McCain will try to make the election about Iraq and the War on Terror, because it is assumed this is both a strength for Republicans, in general, and also personally for Senator Straight Shooter. Of course, the likelihood that anyone in the media will examine McCain’s position on Iraq and on fighting terrorism in depth, much less challenge the assumption that this is his best chance to win the election, is virtually nil. That is simply not what our “drive by” media does these days.
Instead they choose a narrative from the various talking points offered to them by the Great Republican Wurlitzer and Granfalloon Generator, and then they hyperventilate about that chosen narrative at tedious length. The only analysis they typically offer is of the “horse race” variety. The chosen narrative this year is that McCain’s greatest strength is his position on Iraq, where the surge he advocated and promoted is “succeeding.” McCain himself, at various times has acknowledged that his best chance to win is to convince the American people he is correct about his approach to Iraq, that his proposed strategy is to win the war is right and the Democrats are wrong, and that he is better equipped to fight and win the War on Terror than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
Yet, what do we really know about McCain’s proposals other than a few vague campaign pronouncements that the surge (which he supported) is winning the war in Iraq, therefore he’s right and anyone calling for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq is dead wrong? Well fortunately for us, Straight Shooter (or a ghost writer working on his behalf) published an article in Foreign Affairs (the journal of The Council on Foreign Relations) which lays out his positions on Iraq and the war on terror in far greater detail than we are likely to see discussed on any cable news show or even in those so-called “bastions of liberal elitism,” The New York Times and The Washington Post.
So let us examine the positions he supports regarding Iraq, and the arguments he advances in support of those positions, which are set forth in his article, An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom (subtitle: Securing America’s Future), and see if any of the claims he makes can stand up to a careful and objective analysis.
(cont.)
Here is McCain on Iraq and terrorism, presumably in his own words, or, at the very least, words which he authorized and approved. Let’s examine them point by point.
Defeating radical Islamist extremists is the national security challenge of our time. Iraq is this war’s central front, according to our commander there, General David Petraeus, and according to our enemies, including al Qaeda’s leadership.
Put aside for the moment the implicit argument McCain makes that his claim radical Islamic extremists are our greatest national security threat because it is supported by statements made by General Petraeus, and by Al Qaeda’s leadership (and isn’t it a bit dubious to be asserting that one of our avowed enemies is an authority on this issue?). Consider for a moment what other national security threats exist.
For example, the issue of nuclear proliferation, which is a threat not only to our security, but to the security of all nations. A threat, by the way that Republican administrations from Reagan to both Bushes have either ignored, bungled (in the case of North Korea) or actively enabled (in the case of Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons in the 1980’s and 90’s).
Or what about the threat of “loose nukes” which is another area of national security upon which the Bush administration has taken its eye off the ball? Isn’t that a serious national security threat, since those weapons on the black market could fall not only into the hands of Islamic terrorists, but also criminal gangs (who could use those weapons to extort money from Western nations) or “rogue nations” whose interests at odds with our own?
Or what about the buildup of the Chinese military in Asia and its marked increase in defense spending? China has already shown it has the capability to shoot down our communications and spy satellites. Perhaps the threat of China’s growing influence and dominance in Asia is not an immediate concern, but isn’t it long term a serious national security threat which should be a priority in any new administration?
Or what about our
I don’t mean to belittle Senator McCain’s position, but Islamic extremism is far from the only threat we face from a national security perspective. Indeed, “Islamic extremists” is a rather nebulous term McCain does not define for us. Arguably, it can include anyone from the Taliban and the original Al Qaeda, to Iran, to political factions in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, and even to competing Shi’a political factions within the Iraqi government. How do we “defeat” all of these groups, many of whom are antagonists along political, ethnic and sectarian lines? Can we “defeat” them and how would we know when victory is achieved?
In truth, “Islamic extremism” is an open ended “threat” which, like the international communist menace before it, has been simplified and conflated out of all sense of proportion by neoconservatives and those in the military industrial complex who benefit from a belief in a monolithic external enemy. There is no single group of Islamic extremists with a single agenda. Indeed, we have made allies out of some of these so-called Islamic extremists such as SCIRI in Iraq and its militia, the Badr Brigade, while railing against others with similar political and sectarian affinities, such as the current regime in Iran. In Iraq, we are currently paying and arming some Sunni insurgent groups to fight others, much to the dismay of the central Iraqi government dominated by Shi’ite parties.
And there is no question that some of the most extreme and radical Sunni Islamists are officially and also unofficially, supported by the government of Saudi Arabia, our putative friend and ally in the region. Yet we have not invaded the Saudis, nor tried very hard to get them to alter their support for the most extreme form of fundamentalist Islam in the region, Wahhabism and its offshoots.
In short, to claim that Islamic extremism is the greatest threat this generation faces seems both naive and dangerous, because by obsessing about “Islamic extremists” in general, and Iraq as the central front in the war on terror” in particular, we lose our focus regarding those specific terrorist organizations and groups which have done us harm in the past, and which may do us harm in the future, i.e., the original Al Qaeda organization now comfortably ensconced in Northwestern Pakistan, seemingly immune from any effort to dislodge it by the Pakistani military. While we waste soldiers, money and equipment in Iraq, weakening our Army and Marine Corps, the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin have become stronger than ever. They now threaten to turn Afghanistan into a failed state, one which shelters the very terrorists who caused the 9/11 attacks.
McCain again:
The recent years of mismanagement and failure in Iraq demonstrate that America should go to war only with sufficient troop levels and with a realistic and comprehensive plan for success. We did not do so in Iraq, and our country and the people of Iraq have paid a dear price. Only after four years of conflict did the United States adopt a counterinsurgency strategy, backed by increased force levels, that gives us a realistic chance of success. We cannot get those years back, and now the only responsible action for any presidential candidate is to look forward and outline the strategic posture in Iraq that is most likely to protect U.S. national interests.
So long as we can succeed in Iraq — and I believe that we can — we must succeed. The consequences of failure would be horrific: a historic loss at the hands of Islamist extremists who, after having defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the United States in Iraq, will believe that the world is going their way and that anything is possible; a failed state in the heart of the Middle East providing sanctuary for terrorists; a civil war that could quickly develop into a regional conflict and even genocide; a decisive end to the prospect of a modern democracy in Iraq, for which large Iraqi majorities have repeatedly voted; and an invitation for Iran to dominate Iraq and the region even more.
The trouble with this analysis by McCain is that it’s long on rhetoric, and on vague, conclusory statements, and very short on any real analysis to support the assertions made, much less tell us what will be needed to accomplish the goal of “victory in Iraq” for which McCain is such a forceful cheerleader. How is success defined by McCain? We know it cannot include meeting the benchmarks that the Bush administration set for the “Surge” strategy when it was originally implemented, as the majority of those benchmarks have not been met, even according to the administration”s own spokespersons.
If success is measured solely by the metric of a lessening violence in Iraq to levels seen prior to 2006, then yes, one can say it has been a “success” if only a very limited one. However in the context of the central government’s ability to function independently, to provide essential services to the Iraqi people, to pass the legislation and solve the political crisis which was announced to be the principle justification for pouring more American troops into Iraq, then it has been a miserable failure. If one considers the larger picture in Iraq, one cannot be as sanguine about Iraq’s prospects as Senator McCain appears to be. The 4 to 5 million internally and externally displaced persons (i.e., refugees) who were forced to flee their homes because of the ethnic cleansing operations carried out by both Shi’ite and Sunni militias; of the lack of adequate health care; the continued flight from Iraq of medical doctors, lawyers, scientists and other professionals; the imposition of strict notions of Sharia law upon the women of Iraq, restricting their freedom and in many cases threatening their safety; the lack of electrical power and clean water to drink; the raw sewage because of the failure to maintain existing waste water treatment facilities; all of these “facts on the ground” demonstrate that the surge has not yet succeeded in any real sense of the word.
Yet, the surge was supposed to end this Summer. Does McCain propose continuing it indefinitely? That would appear to be his position. Regardless if it is or not, how does he propose to pay for our continued occupation of Iraq? The costs are enormous, estimated to run as high as 3-5 trillion dollars if we continue to “stay the course.” One noble laureate in economics, Joseph Stiglitz has claimed that those costs have already ruined our economy throwing it into a dangerous downward spiral. How can our government continue to sustain such costs in the face of a weakening economy? McCain doesn’t say.
How does McCain propose to deal with the stress which deployments to Iraq have placed on our troops and the loss of equipment and degradation of our military readiness which Army Chief of Staff Casey has been railing about for months? No answer is provided. One can only assume that McCain has either not considered the problem of our overstretched forces, or he has chosen to deliberately ignore the issue.
Nor does McCain provide any analysis to support his bald faced statement that Iraq would turn into a terrorist haven should American troops be withdrawn. He simply assume that if he says it is so, it will happen. In fact, even the conservative analysts at the Cato institute who have looked at the issue, have determined that, while the sectarian violence between Shi’ites and Sunnis may increase, there is little likelihood of Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups gaining a significant foothold in Iraq. Indeed, Al Qaeda in Iraq has never accounted for more than a small percentage of Sunni fighters, somewhere in the neighborhood of between 2 to 5% of all of the forces that make up the Sunni insurgency. To imagine that such a small group will dominate Iraq if we leave is nothing more than willful paranoia, at best.
So when we examine closely McCain’s positions regarding Iraq and its importance in the War on Terror, we find little of substance. His entire policy is based on a an oversimplification and, at times, a deliberate mischaracterization of the nature of the conflict in Iraq. He fails to address important issues such as the cost of the war and its deleterious effects on our military forces, and ignores any evidence of the failures of the escalation he advocated, while exaggerating its very limited gains in terms of a reduction in violence in some areas of Iraq.
In brief, McCain’s statements regarding the war in Iraq are full of pomposity and bluster, but lacking in any objective analysis of the facts. If elected, he essentially promises more of the same failed policies which President Bush has previously implemented with little to show for them except the advancement of Iranian influence in the region. Why the mainstream media, and particularly cable news pundits, continue to trumpet his “stay the course” approach to Iraq as a strength of McCain’s candidacy can only be explained as evidence of their irrational exuberance for the personality of the man. It certainly isn’t based on any objective analysis of his positions, which from my perspective are indistinguishable from the current talking points of the Bush administration.
