I read Arianna's Piece "Prepping to Make the Case that McCain Isn't "Ready to Lead" on National Security" on HuffPo.
He realizes that if his hold on national security were to be aggressively challenged, his lead on that issue would evaporate. So I'm sure he's thrilled to keep the fighting far away from the one thing that could put him in the White House: the idea that he's somehow better at dealing with national security.
McCain has shown time and time again over the last seven years that, far from being an expert when it comes to foreign policy, he is frequently --- and dangerously -- clueless.
. . .
So every day between now and November 4th voters should be reminded that:
McCain has been among the most ardent supporters of the war in Iraq -- the most disastrous foreign policy decision in American history.
. . .
She goes on to list several examples from the vast repertoire of McCluelessness, and while she got the premise right, she sadly misses the punchline.
Danger after the fold.
McCain's credentials are not counterfeit because of his numerous gaffes, misstatements, and misrepresentations, but rather because he fundamentally misunderstands the dynamics of international relations and has a World View a half a Century old.
The western vision prevailed over sponsored communism because the Soviet Union essentially collapsed under the weight of its own Military Industrial Bureaucracy. However, Times have changed and Russia is not the economically challenged, isolated pariah that it was in the latter half of the twentieth Century, and China and India have become major players on the world economic scene. Russia, the Axis of OPEC and Associates with their caches of Petro Dollars dominate Global Capital Accounts, and continue to fund the US account deficit. Further, International goodwill, and confidence in the integrity and competence of the US has been largely degraded by the NeoCons little misadventure into Iraq and associated War on Terror atrocities.
That is the state of the United Nations Today
When King George took office in 2000 Russia and the US were largely working from a posture of collectively pursuing shared interests and engaging on areas of disagreement, some for better, some for worse. We were discussing Budget Surpluses, Peace Dividends, and Iraq 2.0 was but a gleam in John McCain and Dick Cheney's eyes.
It has been well documented that McCain was NeoCon before NeoCon was cool. Their hallucination that military force and sheer force of will can be used to shape the world in their image has brought us toward the precipice of world conflict once again. NeoCons advocate confrontation with a Carrot and Stick approach which might work very well if you are dealing with an Ass or other livestock but is prone to unpredictable results when the aforementioned Ass has Cognitive Thought, Pride and a significant, if somewhat dated, Nuclear Arsenal. They believe "lesser" nations must graciously accept patronage and be subservient to their interests and objectives. How goddamn presumptuous!
By trying to marginalize Russia both diplomatically and economically they have forced the Federation into the Military Sphere of this little Military/Economic/Diplomatic Venn Diagram of International Relations, and they've gone there with Tanks and Bombs, Bombs and Guns, Guns and Knives. Much to our chagrin there is little we can do about it.
Without addressing the validity of the Causus Beli in the Georgian conflict, I will not be surprised that we learn that the leadership, elected through dubious circumstances (but OUR dubious circumstances), was actively encouraged to push back against the Russian influence in the Caucuses under the "Enemy of my Enemy" doctrine. When the situation escalated out of control the Georgian forces were left with their proverbial "danglies" swinging in the wind, with no support other than the tepid calls for "restraint" much like a traffic cop on Quaaludes. Better to be silent and appear callous than be vociferous and appear impotent. To clarify, it is not that I advocate disengagement, it's that empty bellicose rhetoric makes you look like a Putz when Putin/Medvedev give you the finger. Just as with Iraq 2.0, once again the Bush/McCain foreign policy team got it completely wrong and totally misread the dynamics of the situation.
"The appearance of a powerful military bloc on our borders will be taken by Russia as a direct threat to the security of our country," Putin said at the NATO summit in Bucharest earlier this month. He also challenged NATO's argument that Russia would benefit from having stable, Western-backed democracies as neighbors. "The entry of Latvia into NATO has not changed a thing for those hundreds of thousands of people," Putin said. "NATO is not a democratizer."
Trying not to digress too much but the issues of NATO Expansion, Conventional Forces Europe Treaty, Missile Shield Deployment, are not a settled matter and there are legitimate issues on both sides. NATO expansion is a legitimate threat to the balance of power in eastern Europe; and if not a deterrent toward Russia then WHOM? Alien invaders? John McCain, Randy Scheunemann lobby for the admission of Georgia for the enrichment of their cronies in Georgia not caring about the destabilizing influence it has on the region. Should Russia not have issues about the permanent stationing of NATO troops on its borders? It's not to say that the issue should not be negotiated but to assert that Russia has no dog in this fight especially under the CFE Agreement is ludicrous.
We now find ourselves in a precarious Security predicament having destroyed our conventional deterrent capability, ceded our imprimatur of moral principle, and fostered a climate of international antipathy toward our interests. Our posture has changed from one of Persuasion and Consensus to one of Deception and Coercion, and many nations would likely look on with glee as we "Twist in the wind". Our capabilities have been stretched to the breaking point and beyond, and unless we are willing to contemplate full nuclear commitment, rogue nations are free to act with relative impunity. If China moves against Taiwan; What is our response? North Korea makes a move south. We protest . . LOUDLY! Russia continues to exert its influence in the Caucuses and beyond. We'll send strongly worded letters, SHOUTING in BOLD TYPE.
This Iraq quagmire has us so bogged down that we are not able to forcefully respond to events that may threaten our interests around the globe, and don't they realize that our enemies know this too. The fact that we have been fought to a virtual stalemate by a ragtag assortment of Taliban and Al Qaeda Guerrillas in eastern Afghanistan should put a damper on the "Shock and Awe" contingent because it dispels the notion of deterrence.
McCain may assert that he is ready to lead on "Day 1", the truth of the matter is that this is not Day 1, Day 1 was a V_E_R_Y long time ago, and while I'm sure that John was there, the world has fundamentally changed since then (electricity for one), and John McCain has not.
It comes back to the base question:
Are we safer now than we were 8 years ago?
The answer must be a resounding: NO Actually we are much less safe. Because as horrific as the attacks against our nation were, they are insignificant compared to the threat of a nuclear confrontation with Russia.
We can thank Bush/McCain and their fundamentally flawed belligerent foreign relations posture, which exposes their complete and total lack of a grasp on the 21st Century Global dynamic. The Bush/McCain policies and positions may have very well made the US into a veritable Paper Tiger, full of bluster (which they provide abundantly) but with demonstrably little ability to effect its will; and will not this demonstrated impotence embolden our enemies and make us significantly less safe?
It is disgraceful that in the eight years of King George's reign we have gone from talking about Budget Surpluses and Peace Dividends to once again contemplating the possibility of Economic Meltdown and Nuclear Armageddon.
Fuck you very much, Assholes!