Our Overt Pro-War Candidate

All you really need to know about John McCain's position when it comes to foreign policy is summed up in the first sentence in this article from the UK's Daily Telegraph:

A John McCain presidency would take to a more forceful approach to Russia and China, according to senior foreign policy advisers to the Republican candidate.

The article goes on to describe America's favorite "war hero" as a "realistic idealist" when it comes to dealing with the above nations, concluding that McCain would abandon the unilateralist approach followed by President Bush when the US invaded Iraq.

But further isolating the United States from the rest of the world by refusing to talk to other world leaders (the hardline "we don't negotiate with terrorists" comes to mind) is neither realistic nor idealistic. Such practices will only exacerbate present conflicts.

Perhaps intensifying present conflict has been the plan all along. After all, absent some boogeyman, what chance does McCain have of winning?

As for McCain's candidacy, it remains puzzling to me that his campaign's greatest selling point is his rumored "toughness" when it comes to national security. In McCain, we have a man who ruthlessly bombed civilians during the Vietnam War and was (reportedly) subjected to years of enhanced interrogation techniques. His combat experience, coupled with over 20 years in the US Senate becoming an expert in American foreign policy, are the soundbites we hear most frequently when promoting McCain. Dare we ask what has McCain learned?

In short, well, nothing. McCain has supported every American foreign policy blunder--Democrat-led or Republican-led--from Bosnia to Somalia, without protest. He supported sanctions on Iraq and favors increasing sanctions on Iran. Given America's history of sanctions on Iraq, and the fact that those sanctions contributed to anti-American sentiment, how can McWarmonger fail to understand where increased sanctions on Iran will lead?

Again, this may be McCain's plan. Even though he claims to "detest war," he needs a boogeyman to win. Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, etc. will all do just fine.

Further, McCain has learned nothing from his years of being subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Although he spoke out against the United States' usage of torture during the Republican presidential debates, he recently voted against a bill that would have implemented one interrogation standard for all prisoners. I guess it isn't torture as long as the person strapped to the board is a little brown man with a turban on his head.

If all that remains of the Bush Administration is a bunch of bad jokes with worn-out punchlines, what are we to expect of a McCain Administration, one that promises even more widespread, belligerent saber-rattling? Will McCain's "heroic" past insulate him from criticism when conditions further deteriorate under his leadership?

What's needed is more interaction with supposedly hostile nations, not less. By promising to confront China and Russia, McCain is making the same mistake American leaders have made by becoming involved in the affairs other countries since the end of World War II: the misguided belief that America knows what's best for the world. America has become a nation of meddlers, not peacekeepers. I can't name one country where American military presence has brought peace and prosperity to the downtrodden masses, can you?

By voluntarily removing itself from the role of the world's policeman, and instead promoting a foreign policy of commerce, trade, and interaction between all nations, America can restore its reputation as a world leader. Over 55,000 Americans (and countless Vietnamese) lost their lives in Vietnam attempting to stem the flow of communism, and we left the badly damaged country after over 25 years of occupation. Today, US-Vietnamese relations are much better, with citizens of both countries free to interact and trade with each other. Why do we hesitate to apply the lessons learned to Russia, Iran, and North Korea?

I don't buy into the hype and history used to buttress McCain's presidential qualifications. Essentially, in McCain we are just re-packaging the same shit sandwich offered by the Bush Administration, only this time it comes with the guarantee that only a bona fide war "hero" can offer. I just don't see how someone who willingly murdered civilians can be promoted as the world's peace broker. Like so many other government policies, an interventionist policy will only achieve the opposite of its intent.