McCain Versus McCain: Iraq 2008 and Lebanon 1983

Amongst all of the sound bytes and cherry-picking that has been going on in this campaign, I find that it is important to do your own research. And I finally found the candidate who can best express the views that are the polar opposite of those expressed by Senator John McCain.

Senator John McCain.

A few weeks ago I went to my local library and borrowed several books, one of them being John McCain’s “Worth The Fighting For”. This book was originally published in 2002 – after 9/11, but before the invasion of Iraq (update: I found the book at B&N in their bargain section).

Chapter Five, entitled “In Opposition”, caught my attention. It pertains to the tragic events in Lebanon in 1983, when the Marine barracks in Lebanon were attacked by a suicide bomber, killing over 200 American soldiers. Just prior to this, then-Congressman McCain came to a conclusion “in opposition” to President Reagan – namely, in a vote on whether to grant President Reagan authority in the decision to maintain a Military presence. He voted against this authorization, which passed the House by 90 votes.

As I read the chapter, I felt a sense of “déjà vu”. McCain recalls that in Lebanon “ethnic identity politics was the only politics, there could be no strong, central government…particularly so when the central government America decided to strengthen and protect would be dominated by a sect of Christians ruling over a Muslim majority”. But in terms of American involvement, “our naval bombardment had made it rather plain that we were now engaged in Lebanese hostilities”.

So McCain recalls his speech of September 28, 1983, where he asks “will the Lebanese Army ever be strong enough to drive out the Syrians, let alone the PLO? If the answer to this question is no, as I believe it is, then we had better be prepared to accept a lengthy and deeper involvement”. It is notable that he also asserts “The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave … I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave … But I firmly believe this will happen in any event … and I am prepared to accept the consequences of our withdrawl”.

There’s about 15 pages to this chapter on history, yet so much of it sounds to me like a parallel of today. As you read it, you can substitute “Iraq” for Lebanon, “Maliki” for Gemayel, “Al Qaeda” for Hizbullah and/or PLO, "Iran" for Syria. “McCain also describes the country as a “quagmire” for the marines. Aren’t we hearing this word by those opposed to the war today?

You might be compelled to conclude “9/11 changed things”. Maybe so. But I see no subsequent reflection by the author that results in a different conclusion. Furthermore, this book was published in 2002, and in the chapter McCain states “As events turned out, my opposition to the President would prove to be well-founded”. His afterward for the May 2003 paperback edition makes no mention of Lebanon.

So I respectfully ask: How does Senator McCain reconcile his opposition to the Commander In Chief in 1983 with his current claim on his campaign website that opposing it today “would gravely jeopardize American security”? If he acknowledged then that leaving was the best course despite the possibility of increased fighting, why isn’t that a serious option today?

Senator McCain has been known to be a “straight talker”, and a “maverick”. I desire a President who exhibits “wisdom” and “leadership”. And one who has not flipped-flopped in important policy decision philosphy.

As we look toward 2009 and beyond, questions loom about our future policy. Senator McCain states on his website that “there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq”. Well, how many troops are “enough”? And what if, in his policy that almost never mentions the word “diplomacy”, we are confronted with the need to act against the threats of anti-Americanism that exist today in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or the nuclear capabilities of Iran? How many troops will we need, and at what cost? How do we do this with a tax cut? Can we do this with an all-volunteer army? Straight talk, please!

The Bush administration ended up as McCain feared about Reagan, “trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place”. We have a chance to have a new administration change our direction.

I request you, the reader to look at McCain's (and all the candidates') writings on your own when you have the opportunity. Please do not be driven by sound bytes, or even my words.

Thanks for reading.

Mr. McCain's Laissez Faire

I wrote a letter to the Editor of the Washington Post on Sunday morning, it got published today.
This is a link to the Post letter. The original unedited letter follows:

To The Editor:

Mr. George Will applauds Senator McCain's "honorable" policy of "minimalism" in the current housing crisis, preferring little or no government intervention, allowing the housing market to first "find its bottom".

If this was a case of intervention on behalf of people taking paper losses on speculative investments, I would tend to agree.

But foreclosure is not that, it is something that forces families to move from their homes.

It appears that the Republican leadership is moving away even from "Compassionate Conservatism". I can understand not supporting irresponsible "bailouts". But what is our national consciousness? Do we instead allow a large "kick-out"?

Back in the 1980's, Mr. McCain wanted Charles Keating, his own constituent, to be "fairly treated" when Keating met with him and asked for intervention. Senator McCain asks for "fairness" as well today. Is he thus willing to meet with every single one of his Arizona constituents facing foreclosure?

I am fortunate - my house has a relatively low-interest, fixed-rate mortgage. But I do value some type of support to those less so.

This is a link to George Will's article.

My only regret was the removal of the line about "national consciousness", but I think I got my point across.

I did some research while writing the letter. I found a copy of a speech he recently gave regarding the housing crisis, and an article about the Keating scandal from an Arizona newspaper.

Since writing it I looked up what the foreclosure situation in Arizona is. According to this article the rate of sales that are foreclosures in Arizona more than doubled from 2006 to 2007 - from 3.4 percent to 7.4 percent . It didn't show the exact number of foreclosures, but I found in some Reeal Estate pages that it is in the low 4 digits per month. It's not the highest in the country - Nevada is - but I think it is above the National average.

I'll have more to say about the campaign in another blog. I have another letter about foreign policy that I hope someone will publish, so I'll wait a few days before adding it here. Please feel free to read the rest of my blog and comment.

Thank you for reading.