One of the few actual diplomatic achievements of the Bush administration was to negotiate a solution to the North Korea's nuclear weapon program. After an initial hard line stance, It was one of the only times they showed the willingness to engage, rather than saber rattle or threaten military action. (Yes, I just threw half a bone to the Bush administration).
John McCain wants to put a stop to that. Seriously. The one single time this administration actually had a diplomatic solution to a problem, and McCain doesn't like it, he thinks they're being soft.
Its just another aspect of McCain's perverse view of international relations, shaped as it by the scary neoconservative philosophy (which I explored in this earlier post). In fact, this and other policies serve to not only distance us from North Korea, but also threaten to push us away from more powerful players like China and Russia: McCain proposes a "League of Democracies" to bypass Russia and China's role in United Nations activities, alienating them and putting them in a much more adversarial relationship to us. He proposes expelling Russia from the G8 group of world powers, again, isolating them. His policies on nuclear deterrence could potentially lead to more nuclear build up in China and Russia, and to greater nuclear proliferation.
What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war...The neoconservative vision within the speech is essentially an affirmation of ideology. Not only does it declare war on Russia and China, it places the United States in active opposition to all nondemocracies. It proposes a League of Democracies, which would presumably play the role that the United Nations now does, except that all nondemocracies would be cast outside the pale. The approach lacks any strategic framework. What would be the gain from so alienating two great powers?
McCain's supposed strength is his foreign policy experience. But only a little investigation reveals his foreign policy as not only a continuation of some of the Bush administration's reckless policies, but even charting a more disastrous course. So I will dedicated several of these "Why Not McCain" entries to take a more extensive look at some of these foreign policy issues. This, the first, will focus on McCain's overall problematic foreign policy, as explored in several important articles.
Here's an overview from the "The Militarist" in the American Prospect:
Despite neoconservatism's close association in the public imagination with the Bush administration, and despite McCain's image as a moderate, a look at the record makes clear that McCain, not Bush, is the real neocon in the Republican Party. McCain was the neocons' candidate in 2000, McCain adhered to a truer version of the faith during the early years of hubris that followed September 11, and as president McCain would likely pursue policies that will make what we've seen from Bush look like a pale imitation of the real thing. McCain, after all, is the candidate of perpetual war in Iraq. The candidate who, despite his protestations in a March speech that he "hates war," not only stridently backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq but has spent years calling on the United States to depose every dictator in the world. He's the candidate of ratcheting-up action against North Korea and Iran, of new efforts to undermine the United Nations, and of new cold wars with Russia and China. Rather than hating war, he sees it as integral to the greatness of the nation, and military service as the highest calling imaginable. It is, in short, not Bush but McCain, who among practical politicians holds truest to the vision of a foreign policy dominated by militaristic unilateralism.
In an extensive profile in the New York Times Magazine, "The McCain Doctrines," Matt Bai comes to similar conclusions as he discusses with McCain potential military interventions in Burma or Zimbabwe.
McCain is known for being a gut thinker, averse to overarching doctrines or theory. But as we talked, I tried to draw out of him some template for knowing when military intervention made sense — an answer, essentially, to the question that has plagued policy makers confronting international crises for the last 20 years. McCain has said that the invasion of Iraq was justified, even absent the weapons of mass destruction he believed were there, because of Hussein’s affront to basic human values...Most American politicians, of course, would immediately dismiss the idea of sending the military into Zimbabwe or Myanmar as tangential to American interests and therefore impossible to justify. McCain didn’t make this argument. He seemed to start from a default position that moral reasons alone could justify the use of American force, and from there he considered the reasons it might not be feasible to do so. In other words, to paraphrase Robert Kennedy, while most politicians looked at injustice in a foreign land and asked, “Why intervene?” McCain seemed to look at that same injustice and ask himself, “Why not?”
...the enemy described in his speech is an undifferentiated "radical Islamic terrorism." It is less an entity than a metaphysical concept -- existing everywhere and without distinction. McCain draws no distinction between the puny Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas. Interestingly, the U.S. military in Iraq does: it recently gave a briefing that described Al Qaeda in Iraq's foot soldiers as brainwashed twentysomethings rather than fanatical murderers. It should go without saying that an inability to even properly diagnose the enemy can only lead to counterproductive, astrategic overreaction.
Matt Yglesias, again from "The Militarist," sees a similar tendency:
While Bush has been criticized for advancing an unduly broad conception of the terrorism problem, allowing Iraq, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah to all be swept together with al-Qaeda, McCain sees a need to go even bigger. In a May 2007 speech to the Hoover Institution, McCain explained that the so-called war on terror is merely part of a "worldwide political, economic, and philosophical struggle between the future and the past, between progress and reaction, and between liberty and despotism." The despotism problem, in McCain's view, goes beyond the traditional axis of evil and requires us to not only "not put pressure on dictators in Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, and other pariah states" but also to fret that Russia and China have joined forces to block such pressure. At a time when the Bush administration has to some extent backed away from rogue-state rollback, McCain has decided to double down, concluding that the rogue-state problem can't be resolved until all autocratic powers are brought down.
Obama is offering the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades. It cuts to the heart of traditional Democratic timidity. "It's time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right," Obama said in a January speech. "It's time to say that we are the party that is going to be strong and right." (The Democrat who counseled that Americans wanted someone strong and wrong, not weak and right? That was Bill Clinton in 2002.) ...I spoke at length with Obama's foreign-policy brain trust, the advisers who will craft and implement a new global strategy if he wins the nomination and the general election. They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root. An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda. Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It's both and neither -- an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.
In a speech today on Iraq, Hillary Clinton said the following: "Senator Obama holds up his original opposition to the war on the campaign trail, but he didn't start working aggressively to end the war until he started running for president. So when he had a chance to act on his speech, he chose silence instead." And implied that Obama would be dependent on advisors, and won't match "words with actions."
Obama's campaign produced a video response:
Whether the vote was a vote for war or not I recapped in this post, along with headlines from that day.
I myself would add: Hillary herself not only was originally for the war, but only came out strongly for withdrawal in the midst of democratic primary, when it was necessary to do so. Keep Reading (if there's more)...
All the talk of "post-9/11" world, and how the Republicans will attack on national security: the Clinton campaign seems to think their role is to act like Republicans? Rush Limbaugh sure thinks they'll do a better job on it then his guys will.
Obama and Hillary, Hillary and Obama. There's still a Republican they're destroying their party competing to run against (ok one of them is doing most of the destroying). And that Republican is John McCain. And there's some new stories that take a hard look at him.
Salon brings up Hillary's "3 AM" experience gambit and points out John McCain wins on this argument. But should he?
In interviews with Salon this week, several experienced military officers said McCain draws mixed reviews among military leaders, and they expressed serious doubts about whether McCain has the right temperament to be the next president and commander in chief. Some expressed more confidence in Obama, citing his temperament as an asset.
It is not difficult in Washington to find high-level military officials who have had close encounters with John McCain's temper, and who find it worrisome. Politicians sometimes scream for effect, but the concern is that McCain has, at times, come across as out of control..."I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and is now campaigning for Clinton. "I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."
"I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military," said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama. "It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?" Gration asked. "I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him."
And Matt Yglesias looks at McCain's education policy and determines:
Strolling through John McCain's policy proposals is a fascinating experience . . . lurking behind every link is a nearly-astounding level of vacuity
I've found myself emailing a lot of articles I've found on my internet travels around recently, especially as the elections are upon us. I'm pretty pro-Obama, made more so by some of the divisive political hijinks the Clinton team have been up to the last couple of weeks, which have really angered me. If you're up in the air, or find yourself asking "what hijinks is he referring to," or are unconvinced by Obama (as I was until recently), please check back here to at least read (or watch) some of these links. I hope to be a good source of info for someone who doesn't have the time or energy to look up stuff themselves.
