McCain's foreign policy ideas go beyond the surge

[Hash]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080208/wl_mcclatchy/2843894_1

By Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers Fri Feb 8, 12:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON — One thing is clear about John McCain's foreign policy views: he believes strongly in America's power as a force to make the world better, much like his political heroes Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt .

How McCain as president would wield that power is much less clear.

The Arizona senator, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is a leading supporter of President Bush 's troop "surge" in Iraq — a stance that some observers credit with reviving his political fortunes as security in Iraq has at least temporarily improved.

Less well known are McCain's promises, if elected, to expand the size of the Army and Marine Corps from a planned level of about 750,000 to 900,000; to form a U.S.-led League of Democracies to act when the United Nations can't or won't; and to form a new government unit, patterned after the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services , "to fight terrorist subversion" and "take risks that our bureaucracies today rarely consider taking."

McCain's foreign policy advisers are a distinct mix of traditional Republican "realists," who favor a pragmatic approach to the world, and "neoconservatives," who lobbied for the Iraq invasion and favor using U.S. power to transform the Muslim world.

Deepening the intrigue, McCain has broken with his party on key issues, with a more lenient stance on immigration and more concern about global climate change.

"I think he's a very interesting mix," said Gary Samore , who served in the Clinton White House and is now vice president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations .

On issues like climate change and immigration, McCain would be "very different from the Bush administration," Samore said. "On other issues, he's been very bellicose," he said, citing the senator's tough statements on stopping Iran's nuclear program and reversing that of North Korea .

McCain has already indicated he is willing to use national security as a cudgel against the eventual Democratic nominee in the general election campaign.

Hours after his main challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney , dropped out of the GOP race Thursday, McCain all but accused Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama of weakness.

The Democrats, he told the Conservative Political Action Conference , would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq , "recklessly" ignoring the consequences for the Middle East , and "will concede to our critics" that U.S. actions have fueled Islamic radicalism.

But McCain himself has not spelled out in detail how he would deal with dire threats.

Would he keep tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq , despite the strain on America's military, if the situation there stagnates? Would he follow through on threats to attack Iran if it appears close to a nuclear weapon? How would he deal with instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan ? Or China and Russia ?

McCain advisors are reluctant to criticize Bush, even in private. But they suggest that the candidate agrees with many current White House policies, differing mostly on how they've been implemented.

Unlike Bush, McCain would come to the Oval Office with combat experience, years of studying national security issues, and broad foreign travel.

Advisors also dispute the notion that McCain would be quick to order the U.S. military into action.

"This is not somebody who's quick on the trigger," said one long-time ally, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yay fascism and centuries of continuous warfare!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well if America is going to engage in an activist foreign military policy, it needs more troops and by cutting the bloated Navy and Air Force budgets, doing so need not increase our military spending.  The chief tragedy of what has happened in Iraq is not that we went into Iraq, it is that we went in without enough troops to do the job right.

[The Hack Hater]

No, no, please no. McCain better not get any ideas to interfere in hellholes in Africa(certain unstable places like Somalia) where we have no business being. But is there a place where he discusses his plans in broader detail? Does this new government "unit" supposed to go after Jemaayah Islamiah?

[True Democrat]

Well if America is going to engage in an activist foreign military policy, it needs more troops and by cutting the bloated Navy and Air Force budgets, doing so need not increase our military spending.  The chief tragedy of what has happened in Iraq is not that we went into Iraq, it is that we went in without enough troops to do the job right.

Exactly.

This article just increases my support for McCain.

[Frodo]

I went through McCain's campaign website, and nowhere (that I have looked) is it mentioned that he would create an office similar to the WW2-era Office of Strategic Services. 

[JSojourner]

I've said for years we need a larger military.  But my reasons are very different from McCain's.  It seems his "League of Democracies" is an idea straight from the discredited neocon playbook.  "If Burkina Faso won't elect a democratic government, we'll put one in place."

No thanks.

It's not that I am a complete isolationist.  Where crises exist and there are no major powers to intervene, the U.S. should have that option.  But I even opposed Bosnia and Kosovo on those grounds.  Europe should be Europe's problem.  (Even though I opposed it, I have to say -- the Clinton Administration and Wes Clark sure did a better job than the Decider has done in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of bringing aggrieved parties to the table.)

I think we need a larger military to prosecute a more aggressive, vigorous war in Afghanistan. And to be prepared to do so elsewhere if we should be attacked again, assuming we know who attacked us and which countries harbored or enabled them in a significant way.  The claim that liberals don't want to fight is baloney.  We just want to fight the right war and do so with overwhelming and decisive force.

[True Democrat]

I've said for years we need a larger military.  But my reasons are very different from McCain's.  It seems his "League of Democracies" is an idea straight from the discredited neocon playbook.  "If Burkina Faso won't elect a democratic government, we'll put one in place."

No thanks.

It's not that I am a complete isolationist.  Where crises exist and there are no major powers to intervene, the U.S. should have that option.  But I even opposed Bosnia and Kosovo on those grounds.  Europe should be Europe's problem.  (Even though I opposed it, I have to say -- the Clinton Administration and Wes Clark sure did a better job than the Decider has done in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of bringing aggrieved parties to the table.)

I think we need a larger military to prosecute a more aggressive, vigorous war in Afghanistan. And to be prepared to do so elsewhere if we should be attacked again, assuming we know who attacked us and which countries harbored or enabled them in a significant way.  The claim that liberals don't want to fight is baloney.  We just want to fight the right war and do so with overwhelming and decisive force.

What if Europe is not willing to act?  Should we allow genocide to occur?

[2952-0-0]

What if Europe is not willing to act?  Should we allow genocide to occur?

They will act. Austria isn't going to take millions of refugees flooding in. End of story.

[True Democrat]

What if Europe is not willing to act?  Should we allow genocide to occur?

They will act. Austria isn't going to take millions of refugees flooding in. End of story.

They obviously didn't act in Bosnia (though neither did we at first).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yay fascism and centuries of continuous warfare!

There is plenty of fascism and continuous warfare going on around the world already.  That is what the UN has been unable to address and where the League of Democracies might be able to do something.  A larger military does not mean more wars - it means we are ready to fight them when needed to stop aggression.

[Kevin]

A McCain Presidency is going to be radically different from a Bush one that can be assumed. With the League of Democracies I think McCain understands the drawbacks to unilateralism and I think he would use such an idea to promote more consideration and cooperation with America's alllys in the Democratic World.       

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There's a great interview with McCain on foreign policy and national security here:

http://www.pajamasmediavideo.com/

[2952-0-0]

A McCain Presidency is going to be radically different from a Bush one that can be assumed. With the League of Democracies I think McCain understands the drawbacks to unilateralism and I think he would use such an idea to promote more consideration and cooperation with America's alllys in the Democratic World.       

It's a shame that not all freely elected governments are willing to march in lockstep with some old curmudgeon who makes jokes about bombing Iran isn't it?

[phk]

What if Europe is not willing to act?  Should we allow genocide to occur?

They will act. Austria isn't going to take millions of refugees flooding in. End of story.

Europeans outside of the British don't care about human rights and thats certainly not an example to follow.

[Person Man]

What if Europe is not willing to act?  Should we allow genocide to occur?

They will act. Austria isn't going to take millions of refugees flooding in. End of story.

Europeans outside of the British don't care about human rights and thats certainly not an example to follow.

Don't really blame 'em. They have had horrors for centuries. They don't want to get involved in war or religion like we do.


Also, McCain seems to want to replace the U.N. (as phucked as they become) with an American Colony System.

[opebo]

Another nut exactly like Bush.  Has this imperialist jingoism not been discredited by now?  He's like a voice from another century, the old loon.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

What if Europe is not willing to act?  Should we allow genocide to occur?

They will act. Austria isn't going to take millions of refugees flooding in. End of story.

Europeans outside of the British don't care about human rights and thats certainly not an example to follow.

Oh, I didn't know that US foreign policy, and foreign policy of any country in general, was most of the time driven by human rights intentions.

What if Europe is not willing to act?  Should we allow genocide to occur?

They will act. Austria isn't going to take millions of refugees flooding in. End of story.

Europeans outside of the British don't care about human rights and thats certainly not an example to follow.

Don't really blame 'em. They have had horrors for centuries. They don't want to get involved in war or religion like we do.

Hehehe, Hmm, Thank you Angry W....!

But, mainly, first of all:

Hello! Europe doesn't exist! It's just a market! And the 1st of the world!

Here we can buy, sell, give some money here or there by saying something like: "Here's some money, please be nice and use it for the good of your people, please", concerning the rest we have TVs and we can watch what do the others in the world and we can just say something like: "Oh! It's not good to do this! It's not good! We European are nice and have the truth, we would have never done this". And when we try to establish a political Europe, only way to get power and to express a voice on the international scene, we say something like: "No no no, each country with its own power and its own identity! We just want the market!".

Oh yes, with have some power, each country has the power to say "Yes, I come" or "No, I don't come" when US decides something...

Oh, ok Europeans, euh, please, first, be aware that our identities are done because we have ran in the US way of life for 60 years now. Look at young generations and try to find the European identities, try to compare if there are more differences or more resemblances between peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. Hmm, Europeans, maybe you don't want because you're afraid of the reality, aren't you? You shouldn't, that's the reality, that's all.

Oh, Europeans, second, if you continue on your way, don't complain when US put mess in the world.

Oh, I'm European, if I took all of this seriously, I would be very tired mentally. But, hmm, isn't it serious...?

Also, McCain seems to want to replace the U.N. (as phucked as they become) with an American Colony System.

A McCain Presidency is going to be radically different from a Bush one that can be assumed. With the League of Democracies I think McCain understands the drawbacks to unilateralism and I think he would use such an idea to promote more consideration and cooperation with America's alllys in the Democratic World.       

I Agree with both quotes. These and the articles which opens this topic go in the sens of what I think for a long time:

Imperialism will go on and on in the future and it will be more and more driven by West than by only US, with the fact that US and Europe will be closer and closer.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Also, McCain seems to want to replace the U.N. (as phucked as they become) with an American Colony System.

Where do you even get this idea?
The whole point of McCain's League of Democracies (which would supplement rather than replace the UN) is so that nations can work together to address international threats.  It would mean less unilateral action by America.

[Person Man]

Also, McCain seems to want to replace the U.N. (as phucked as they become) with an American Colony System.

Where do you even get this idea?
The whole point of McCain's League of Democracies (which would supplement rather than replace the UN) is so that nations can work together to address international threats.  It would mean less unilateral action by America.

Maybe it would be a good idea, but in the entire McCain context, it can't be good.

[NDN]

Yeah, as I said this alone is pretty much enough to keep me from ever voting for McCain for President. Even against Hillary.

[MODU]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yay fascism and centuries of continuous warfare!

Increasing the size of our military back to where it should be (which I find funny when Democracts today call for increasing the size of the military when it was them who gutted it in the 90s) is not fascism, neither is the League of Democracies (something that Bill Clinton also endorsed).  As far as fighting terrorism, we've been doing covert strikes against numerous groups for decades, and that has nothing to do with fascism.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Increasing the size of our military back to where it should be (which I find funny when Democracts today call for increasing the size of the military when it was them who gutted it in the 90s) is not fascism, neither is the League of Democracies (something that Bill Clinton also endorsed).  As far as fighting terrorism, we've been doing covert strikes against numerous groups for decades, and that has nothing to do with fascism.

Making something like "League of democracies" is making a clan, is saying to others:

"We, League of democracies, we are nice and we are right, we got the truth".

Which reaction do you expect from other countries? Something like:

"Oh, yes you're right, I'm so bad, please forgive me, learn me how to be good, please...".

No, for sure, it will provoke the total opposite. What is the legitimation for somebody to say: "I'm the truth"? What's its legitimation to say: "I can and I will impose you this truth"?

If you take this way, you've to clearly say: "We think our duty is to make our truth winning all other the world", you've to assume the position of the one who think he has the truth and who want to impose it.

But, please, don't serve us this bad cocktail of international rights, fighting for democracies, against fascism and all sorts of thing...

I would be grateful to US if they really assumed their imperialist position and still more if they recognized that their own interest are more important than their principles...

Yes, please US, let fall hypocrisy... Thanks!

[MODU]

Well, that is definitely one way to look at it, I guess.  Or, you can look at it from a more realistic point of view (in the way we've been doing it for the past few decades), where like-minded nations which happen to have the resources available to them to go out and help combat the ills of society (be it famine, AIDS, lack of water, natural disasters, or even terrorism) in a matter that the UN isn't capable of doing since there are too many cooks spoiling the soup. 

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, that is definitely one way to look at it, I guess.  Or, you can look at it from a more realistic point of view (in the way we've been doing it for the past few decades), where like-minded nations which happen to have the resources available to them to go out and help combat the ills of society (be it famine, AIDS, lack of water, natural disasters, or even terrorism) in a matter that the UN isn't capable of doing since there are too many cooks spoiling the soup. 

Well, I maintain my last post.

Except that the US foreign policy has not been, and is not, only what you say here, if what you say here was really sincere from US, OK, why not. But I'm not sure it is and I would prefer it to be assumed.

I just ask for an assumed leadership of the world, with other countries or not ("League of democracies" or any league they want...), for not mocking those who undergo the dominion.

I just ask for the end of hypocrisy.

That's not very expensive! Isn't it?