“Senators McCain and Graham, you have sat too long for any good you have
been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name
of God, go!”
By Ace
I
still consider myself a hawk.
But
I don't consider myself a super-hawk. Post-9/11, I became a super-hawk. I'm not
one any longer.
John
McCain and Lindsey Graham are still pushing a super-hawk line that the public
widely rejects.
They
need to stop. If the only choice is between appeasement and super-hawk
full-commitment total war, the public will choose appeasement. It's choosing
appeasement right now in the case of Iran, which by now -- thanks to
appeasement and stalling -- likely already has an (undeclared) nuke. (And don't ask me to speculate about what
crooked deal Obama may have forged with them, to keep that nuke existing (helps
Iran) but undeclared (helps Obama, but not the US).)
McCain
wanted total commitment to Iraq-- whatever it took. Literally, whatever it
took. If it took 100 years, well than that's what it would take.
Fine.
But then he also demanded that the US intervene in Libya and now calls for the
US to intervene in Syria.
Perhaps
it would be shorter to compose a list of places John McCain does not want the
US military involved.
I
remember the Kosovo air war. I was plenty against the Kosovo air war, because I
strongly suspected we were only in it because of Monica Lewinsky.
But
I remember John McCain's response: McCain argued that Clinton must get
"boots on the ground" -- US army soldiers and Marines -- in Kosovo.
Or at least be "prepared" to put boots on the ground.
Wait,
what? Why?
Remember
Clinton's claim that it might spark a World War if we didn't intervene, as
conflagrations in the Balkans had sparked WWI and (not sure how he figures
this) WWII? Yeah, the press doesn't remember that either, and never brought
that up when attacking George W. Bush for saying that it was important to world
peace to pacify Iraq. They just completely forgot Clinton's much more alarmist
claim that we must intervene in Kosovo, of all places, or face a Third
World War.
But
my actual point is that the Kosovo intervention, to the extent it could be
challenged, could be challenged on the grounds that it wasn't our concern and
wasn't our fight.
But
McCain, oddly enough, decided the opposite -- not only was it critical, but it
was so critical we had to interject US ground forces or else we'd suffer some
kind of a "loss of honor."
His
idea seems to be that if we're fighting a war on the cheap -- stealth jets,
cruise missiles, drones -- we're not really fighting it because we have
no skin in the game or something. Like it's only our readiness to put US forces
at risk of capture or killing that proves our "honor."
I
gotta tell ya, I don't mind fighting wars in which almost all the risks fall
upon the enemy's soldiers. But McCain has this medieval concept that only
face-to-face battles are sufficient to safeguard our national
"honor." (Rather like how the crossbow was reviled as a coward's
weapon because it killed knights so easily and didn't put the archer himself at
great risk.)
I
am certain that the way forward is not continuing to talk the way McCain talks,
in that Kennedyesque "We will bear any burden" way. When Kennedy said
that, it was a lie. It was just a bit of noble-sounding rhetoric. He didn't
really intend to "bear any burden." It was a quote for the press.
But
McCain actually seems to believe it -- which is why the public will praise
Kennedy's grandiose lie (it makes us feel good about ourselves without actually
committing ourselves to anything) while being a bit alarmed by a
similar-sounding McCain pronouncement.
I
think it's time to stop talking about having "no limits" as to what
we may do with our military and start talking about the limits which certainly
exist. These are real, living, flesh-and-blood men and women. They're not lead
figures in a war game. When we talk about "bearing any burden," we
are not "bearing any burden." They are.
As
Governor Perry remarked, relating, I think, the feelings of a Marine:
"They say America's at war, but America's not at war. America's military
is at war. America's at a shopping mall."
Now
that's the job they signed up for, of course, but let's not just send them everywhere
to die over this medieval notion that "honor" is only satisfied when
there's a cost in blood. If we can accomplish objectives more cheaply, and lose
less American blood, certainly, let's do that, and the hell with McCain's sense
of "honor."
I
mention this because of McCain's freak-out over Rand Paul.
“Senator
McCain is obviously well aware of the politics of this – he just doesn’t care,”
said one McCain aide. “He’s doing what he thinks is right. Unlike many of these
guys, he’s actually been involved in a few national security debates over the
years. He knows that jumping on the Rand Paul black helicopters crazytrain
isn’t good for our Party or our country, no matter what Twitter says.”
I
think McCain is blowing his stack for two reasons:
1,
Because his mind simply rejects any possible limit to military action
reflexively. So when Rand Paul suggests that the President can't just kill a
non-combatant American citizen on American soil, McCain revolts against it
without even thinking. Because this is war, and in war there must not be
any limits. Limits are for cowards and for losers.
Actually,
limits are for anyone in the real world. "No limits" is a slogan fit
for a steroid case's workout sweatshirt, but not for American military policy.
Adults have to recognize that we do in fact have limits, and that there are
some burdens that we're not willing to bear, so there's no point in
constantly lying to ourselves about this.
2,
Because he thinks Rand Paul is actually shifting the Republican position to Ron
Paul's empty-headed hippie baby-talk "Love" bullshit, whereby, as a
matter of doctrine, we must never engage anywhere because only
consensual agreements are permitted in foreign policy.
I
will discuss how that's idiotic another time.
I
think McCain is right on this point, and yet wrong. Rand Paul is not moving
public opinion on this point or even Republican opinion on this point. Rather,
public and Republican opinion on this point has already moved, but is
currently being falsified because no one ever wants to admit they're wrong, and
Rand Paul is offering people an opportunity to express their real
opinion.
And
that could wind up working out badly for the hawks, as McCain expects, because
people might just be seduced into just doing a 180 on their Idealism -- moving
from "we will make any sacrifice to make the world safe for
democracy" (a sentiment as noble as it is false) to a new
completely-opposite Idealism of pacifism. But in both cases they're as
Idealistic and Noble as they can possibly be. So it's an attractive thing.
I
actually don't believe in Paulian pacifism and do believe in the need and
justification for American intervention on a limited basis and in pursuit of
a limited number of objectives.
If
McCain also believes that -- and of course he does -- he would be wise to stop
making the choice between the Ron Paul doctrinal peacenikism and the McCain
Interventions Incorporated model.
Because
McCain will lose, and so will the concept of interventionism itself.
Gingrich
had it right on this-- he said "I'm a hawk, but I'm a cheap hawk."
McCain is an extravagant hawk, and he's the worst spokesman for
hawkishness there is. And if he keeps pushing his No Limits doctrine, he's
going to find the country is now embracing All Limits.
Let's
be smart about this, let's remember that the United States is made up of actual
human beings who do in fact have limits, and start thinking about Some
Limits. Smart Limits. Realistic Limits. Workable Limits.
The
country doesn't exist to exemplify McCain's dubious conceptions of honor. Other
things enter into the equation, like the human cost to our boys and civil
liberties and even, yes, the filthy considerations of dirty money.
McCain
is vaingloriously defending a hill that was lost in 2008, if not 2006. It's
time to pick a more defensible hill.
http://tinyurl.com/a78xbr8
No comments:
Post a Comment