For most of the 2008 elections season the popular media has given John McCain a greater nod with respect to foreign policy over his Democratic challenger Barack Obama. McCain, who spent nearly a quarter century as a Naval officer prior to another twenty years as a United States Senator and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, certainly has credentials that merit attention when he speaks of America’s role as not only the “World’s Cop”, but also the world’s conscience.

For Democrats, the question has been whether that experience means anything if McCain refuses to outline rational, sound policy suggestions for a secure future? Despite his many years of service, McCain has shown a penchant for puerile antics, such as his “Bomb Iran” song that was sung to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann” earlier this year.

Last year, McCain gave a glimpse into his policy goals in an essay published in the Foreign Affairs magazine, one of the leading journals for political thought.

McCain first suggests that America needs a president who can “revitalize our country’s purpose and standing in the world, defeat terrorist adversaries who threaten liberty at home and abroad, and build an enduring peace.” McCain continues by arguing that our greatest objective is “defeating radical Islamic terrorism.”

While this reads well and should certainly remain the top foreign policy objective regardless of the eventual winner, it underscores one of the more disturbing truths of the election season, that McCain has supported the very Bush administration policies that have weakened America’s “standing in the world” while failing to directly engage Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other specific terrorists cells that are responsible for the majority of the mayhem in the world.

McCain has been able to pull this bait and switch by discussing terrorism in broad themes---tying the war in Iraq, which had no role in the 9/11 attacks or any of the other terrorist attacks over the past 15 years, to the war against terrorist cells. While the world is not shedding tears for Saddam Hussein’s ouster and execution, the question is whether such an expensive and unnecessary war was needed when the same could have been accomplished through covert operations? These questions will linger for many years to come, and as I have said in previous columns, history may ultimately prove Bush correct in establishing the seeds of Democracy in Iraq, particularly if it becomes a stabilizing force in the region.

McCain compares potential American failure in Iraq to the Soviet failure in Afghanistan by suggesting that if such occurs, Islamic extremists would believe that “the world is going their way.” The problem is that McCain refuses to acknowledge that victory already has been secured. Iraq’s democratically elected Prime Minister has asked for our withdrawal, and all signs point to greater stability. While an American presence is certainly needed to bolster and continue training Iraqi forces, the current troop level is unnecessary. Even the very stubborn George Bush has recently recommended a phased withdrawal, yet McCain continues to insist that force levels must remain status quo.

This leads me to question the legitimacy of McCain’s additional points that America must:

1. Increase NATO’s presence in Afghanistan

2. Assist Pakistan in “resisting forces of extremism” by “making a long-term commitment to that country.”

While both prongs make for great sound bytes, McCain is extremely vague as to how he would accomplish either. With our forces spread painfully thin, one of the disturbing trends of the past eight years has been the loss of Allied support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While McCain speaks of restoring our alliances, it is difficult to do so with a unilateral “with us or against us” mindset that has become the hallmark of the last eight years. Is McCain best suited to reinvigorate our allies to reinvest troops and materials to Afghanistan?

Additionally, what measures would be in place to assist Pakistan in “resisting extremism” when Pakistan has failed to do so to this point despite receiving Billions of dollars in US aid? Last fall, Barack Obama took much criticism as being naïve when he suggested that he would bomb areas in Pakistan if certain strategic objectives could be met by so doing. What would McCain do to ensure that we receive a return on our Pakistani investments?

McCain also argues that Iran is the “world’s chief state sponsor of terrorism.” Without question, Iran is helmed by a man that believes the Holocaust was a hoax. We would be gravely endangered if such a lunatic developed nuclear weapons.

Still, what the public hears, “Bomb Iran”, is only one aspect of what may work, which is heightened economic and political sanctions. For reasons known but to him, the public McCain highlights military force in Iran while his essay actually gives deference to the role of economic sanctions, including a worldwide embargo on Iranian oil and refined gasoline.

Which leads to probably the most intriguing aspect of McCain’s proposed foreign policy, which is a “League of Democracies.” We all remember earlier this summer when McCain suggested that Russia be excluded from the G-8 because of its human rights abuses and increased military threats to its former satellites. With Russia’s recent invasion of Georgia, Europe has once again become the focal point in world peace.

McCain believes that a “League of Democracies” could not only pressure Russia and other totalitarian states, but also be used to help stem the tide of violence and HIV/AIDS in Africa as well as global environmental crises.

While McCain’s essay certainly reveals a statesman that has spent years pondering the most serious foreign policy issues of our time, it also reveal a man that is unwilling to make the same case to the American people, as least in the very public venues of town hall meetings and debates. With Republicans often thumbing their noses at bureaucracies (big government) and International alliances, it is amazing that the academic side of McCain actually advocates greater bureaucracies (reestablishing the diplomatic US Information Agency that was abolished under Clinton) and alliances (League of Democracies).

McCain, who considers himself a Reagan disciple, has yet to understand that while Reagan spoke tough (Evil Empire) behind the scenes, he had his underlings at the State Department working feverishly to cajole the Soviet leaders into the reforms that ultimately led to the fall of Communism.

As to Islamic extremism, one of the key points in McCain’s essay was when he discussed the need to engage and support Islamic moderates, including lawyers, doctors and teachers, in developing the reforms necessary to combat the small but well financed group of Islamic extremists. Again, the problem from a perception standpoint is that McCain is often guilty of failing to publicly acknowledge that Islamic moderates even exist. By remaining silent on arguably his greatest point, McCain gives in to the zealots in his own party that believe that the War on Terror is nothing but the most recent battle in the age old “Crusades” between Christianity versus Islam, which it clearly is not.

Join BBN for free to post a comment on this page.
If you already have an account, please login here to post a comment on this page.