McCain's Two Wars

By Michael Shank, Foreign Policy in Focus. Posted January 16, 2008.

For many Democrat voters, John McCain represents the least bad Republican presidential candidate on the ballot. Democrats not wanting the Bible in the White House are disinclined toward southern Baptist Mike Huckabee, and those not wanting a doubled-in-size Guantanamo or an immigrant-free America find Mitt Romney completely unlikable. McCain seems to be the most willing to build bipartisan coalitions, the most willing to give detainees legal representation, and the most willing to tackle global warming - all of which makes many Democrat voters fonder of McCain than any other Republican candidate.

For many Republican voters, the thinking is similar: John McCain represents the least unfavorable option. He is strong on defense, envisions small and accountable government, promotes fiscal conservatism, supports pro-life and traditional marriage values, and is an experienced soldier who paid his dues in Vietnam. Perhaps most importantly, compared to competing candidates Huckabee and Romney, McCain will be, by far, the best commander-in-chief. He stands ready to "win the war" against Islamic extremism and will fearlessly lead the country further into battle until the war is won. Voters who have a hard time imagining preacher Huckabee or corporate executive Romney on the battlefield, have no trouble envisioning the retired Navy POW on the streets of Baghdad saying "once more unto the breach dear friends, once more."

John McCain, the self-dubbed straight-talker, is indeed a unique candidate. The New Hampshire victory breathed life into his faltering campaign. Whether he can maintain the momentum remains to be seen. In the meantime, analysis into President McCain's foreign policy is needed. It turns out that 'least bad' and 'least unfavorable' maintains the status quo on two critical foreign policy issues: the war on terrorism and the war on global warming.

McCain on Iraq

In Iraq, McCain has diligently stood by President George W. Bush's troop surge from the onset. In fact, had McCain been the American commander, troop numbers would have tripled in the 2003 invasion. Similarly, as if the $500 billion dollars spent on the Iraq war was somehow insufficient, McCain was long ago convinced that "we need to spend a lot more money."

Flak-jacketed McCain has been to Baghdad. Though well protected by helicopters, tanks, and troops while touring, he has consistently returned with assessments of improvement and success. Never daunted by reports indicating otherwise, McCain's stubborn commitment to winning the war has appeared both foolish and yet, in a weird way, valorous. Now that the troop surge appears to be paying off in terms of slightly reduced attacks, McCain's persistence is paying dividends in the primaries.

All this is remarkable for one reason: McCain deviates little from Bush. In fact, on Iraq, President Bush has McCain to thank, being at times the president's most solid support in the Senate. But on Iran and Syria, unlike rival Huckabee, President McCain would not, in his words, "enter into unconditional dialogs with these two dictatorships" but rather ensure that the United States "bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination." This is straight up President Bush speaking. In the last two presidential terms, the president has effectively inculcated a new US foreign policy protocol of no dialog with the adversary. American presidents, pre-Bush, had no such policy in place. Nixon talked to China. Reagan eventually talked to the Soviets. And in both cases, U.S. foreign policy was well served: the conflict deescalated as a result.

See more stories tagged with: iraq, vietnam, election08, john mccain

Michael Shank is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) and an analyst with George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »