The Consequences Of McCain’s Bad Judgment
The Consequences Of McCain’s Bad Judgment
Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview of John McCain is very worth reading, as it gives a pretty good view into the coloring book version of the Middle East that McCain offers to the American people. For all of the Middle East leaders that McCain has met with — and he really, really wants you to know how many he has met with — McCain’s knowledge of the region persists at the level of a twenty minute briefing. It’s nice that he can name-check Barak, Olmert, and Abbas; It would be really nice if he demonstrated any knowledge of the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, or offered any good idea on how to move the peace process forward, which he does not.
What’s really troubling is McCain’s cluelessness about the disastrous effects of the Iraq war on American security. Asked by Goldberg whether he thinks Iran’s intention “is the actual destruction of America,” McCain answers that…the United States should stay in Iraq:
It’s hard for me to say what their intentions are, but the effect -– If they were able to drive us out of Iraq, and al Qaeda established a base there, and the Shiite militias erupted and the Iranian influence was expanded, which to my mind is what would happen, then the consequences for American national security would be profound. I don’t know if their intention is to destroy America and what we stand for, but I think the consequences of them succeeding in the destruction of the state of Israel and their continued support for terrorist organizations – all of these would have profound national security consequences.
You know what’s also had profound negative consequences for American national security? Invading and occupying Iraq. McCain has offered this justification before, and continues to completely miss the point.
Iran has been the single biggest beneficiary of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Former diplomat Peter Galbraith wrote last September that Iraq was a “mission accomplished–for Iran“:
Of all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran’s strategic victory is the most far-reaching…For eight years of brutal warfare in the 1980s, Iran tried to breach that line but could not. (At the time, the Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein precisely because it feared the strategic consequences of an Iraq dominated by Iran’s allies.) The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq accomplished what Khomeini’s army could not.
Journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote in March that “the United States has spent most of the past five years in a de facto alliance with Iran in support of the Shiite-led (and US-installed) regime in Baghdad….Washington’s decision to topple Saddam’s government has put in place a ruling elite that is far closer to Iran than it is to the United States.”
Rather than weakening Iranian hard-liners, as the Iraq war’s advocates insisted it would, the American invasion only strengthened them.
The consequences of Iraq for Israel’s security have also been negative. Brian Katulis writes that “in the summer of 2006, when Israel was fighting a live war with the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, it was clear whose side most Iraqi leaders were on — and it was not Israel.”
Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki condemned Israel’s “aggression,” and that same summer, the Iraqi speaker of parliament Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani accused “Jews” of being behind the violence and murders in Iraq. Are these the type of allies that the United States wants? Is the current policy in Iraq undermining U.S. and Israeli security interests by giving Iran some breathing room to expand its influence further around the region? These are tough questions to answer, but U.S. leaders need to address this fundamental contradiction at the heart of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Rather than consider these questions, however, McCain prefers to engage in empty sloganeering and fear-mongering as he plans the next war.
3 Responses to “The Consequences Of McCain’s Bad Judgment”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
With all due respect, I think this is a coloring book version of McCain’s views. Perhaps you were expecting some ground-breaking blueprint for peace, but I don’t think either candidate will provide anything like that on the trail. However, McCain did note that he sees himself as a “chief negotiator” type, evidently emulating Carter and Clinton. Obama doesn’t differ much either on the substance, and says some thing that I don’t think are really valid. Is Israel a drag on the US image abroad? I think it clearly is – you cannot deny the resentment towards Israel, particular coming out of the Middle East, which is tied directly to US aid to Israel. I support Israel and a two-state solution, but I think Obama’s answer was a clear political dodge that all candidates make.
Your critique of McCain’s Iran answer is rather weak. You note rightly that the war has helped Iran, but you fail to distinguish between whether we should be there now and whether we should have been there in the first place. Perhaps if we had more troops and better execution, Iran would be worse off; I submit that we don’t know. However, as Obama says, we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. Moreover, Sen. Obama has said on the trail that he would put troops back into Iraq if al Qaeda flooded back in (as you know many of them were pushed out of Anbar Province due to the Sunni Awakening). McCain is right – it is a national security threat that Iran seeks to gain influence in Iraq, which should be a rather noncontroversial fact. The serious question is whether it is worth it to try and limit their influence by staying; my position is that the Iran threat, plus the threat of Sunni insurgents, plus the opportunity to improve security and thus reconciliation (as has happened in the past year) all make it worth it to continue providing a military presence there.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 amHow bad of a disaster does the illegal war have to be before one will finally oppose it, and yes, that means advocate withdrawal, even without victory? 100s of 1000s of Iraqis killed, polls show Iraqis want us out. Do you favor a plebiscite: So Iraqis can vote us out? If not, what kind of democrat are you? It’s predictable that McCain OR Obama will keep us in Iraq (withdrawal without victory is “unthinkable”). As to Israel, the US “support for Israel” equals OPPOSITION to a 2-state solution. Do you support UN Res 242, that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders? Palestine needs real autonomy and a contiguous territory– Israel is running the clock and is unwilling to give this to Palestinians: thanks to US backing. Which is the biggest reason why the US isn’t exactly a big hit among EITHER the Iraqi or Iranian populations. As long as we don’t grasp the real issues, we simply “stay the course”– towards (more) disaster.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pmThis is all nuts:
It is true that Iran has benefited from a reduction of the threat from the Taliban, the vanquishing of a prior enemy, and the establishment of a friendly government in Iraq.
The reason why this post, the comments, and virtually all of the discussion in the media about the Middle East and S.W. Asia is all nuts: Not only is there no evidence that Iran poses any threat to the US OR Israel (, or to any other country for that matter), but the evidence consistently implies that Iran is no threat and wants peace.
The false pretense propaganda campaign of lies by the Bush regime, special interests, the corporate-military cabal, and the main stream media continues to repeat the debunked bald faced fabrications portraying Iran as a threat. It is essentially the same BS campaign as the transparent lies used during the lead up to the War Crime that was and is the attack on Iraq.
Ahmadinejad has never threatened or called for an attack on Israel. He never called for Israel to be wiped off the map. During the speech (falsely claimed to contain the threat) Ahmadinejad never said the words Israel, map or wipe. In the same speech he asserted, as he has consistently asserted, that Iran wants peace with all nations.
There is no evidence that Iran has now, has ever had, or has ever desired to have a nuclear weapons program. They have called for the elimination of all Nuclear weapons which they refer to a great evil.
Every report that Iran is sending weapons to Iraq for use against US troops or the Iraqi military has been proven to be false and an intentional fabrication.
Every claim that Iran is training al Qaeda or the Iraqi resistance is preposterous because these groups are primarily Sunni’s hostile to Iran (shite) and it is obvious that Iran supports the Al-Maliki government.
Iran has not attacked another country in over two centuries. How many other countries could make that claim? Not the US and not Israel. The US attacked more than 100 countries (not including WWII) in the 20th century alone, which if you do the math averages out to more than 1 attack on another country per year.
Although Iran is not an Arab country they have supported the Arab peace proposal that is still on the table (but rejected by the US and Israel) which not only calls for the recognition of Israel but normalization of relations in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders and to obey International law requiring the right of return for the Palestinians driven from their homes.
Al-Maliki was right to condemn Israel’s 2006 aggression against (and near total destruction of) Lebanon. He was condemning the type of behavior that the current criminals occupying the US government falsely claim that Iran aspires to.
It seems obvious that Bush’s name calling and threats of violence against Iran in the months prior to Ahmadinejad’s election was intentionally designed to get as right-wing a result in their elections as possible. He wanted officials that he could point to as dangerous to conjure up pretense for mass murder in the next country on the list. As General Clark said he learned from the Pentagon in 2001, the Pentagon had been ordered to draw up plans to attack 5 (or it might have been 6) countries. The goal of the disinformation machine is to vilify the people and leaders of all of the countries on such lists.
It’s time that Americans wake up to the scam that has repeatedly succeeded with them for the past century. The scam uses lies and trumped up drama to convince Americans that some country (directly or indirectly) poses a danger to the US and that it would really in the best interests of the people of that country and the region (or to humanity as a whole) that we mass murder them and take from them both there freedom and whatever the economic elites in this country covet
.
Enough!!!
Peace, JK
October 28th, 2008 at 9:04 pm