IOKIFYAAR

It's okay if you are a Republican.

Some evangelicals said today that they were not put off by the news, in light of the fact that Bristol Palin plans to carry the baby to term and marry the father. Cathie Adams, president of the Eagle Forum's Texas chapter, said she was pleased Palin's daughter was nearly done with high school and that she was going ahead with the pregnancy.

"This is a family that keeps dealing with challenges and they keep doing the right thing," Adams said, adding that humans are "fallen beings."

Only an evil liberal would judge this good family in this private matter.

More Fair and Balanced

Since my last post slammed John McCain for his plan for a multi-decade surge in Iraq, I should make it clear that Barack Obama is, at best, marginally better which means there is virtually no difference between them when it comes to foreign policy. They represent slightly different variations in the bipartisan consensus that that has dominated American foreign policy for the past half century.

Barack Obama certainly offers me no hope for change. Just more of the same, but not batshit crazy like John McCain.

Surge on into the Breach

John McCain is sounding more desperate as he insists that Barack Obama was so very wrong about “the Surge” and that he (McCain) was oh so very right and courageous to have supported a policy that saved our forces from “retreating under fire”.

Speaking to an association of Hispanic veterans, McCain renewed his criticism of Obama's opposition to an additional "surge" of troops into Iraq in 2007, which McCain said made the war winnable.

A decision not to deploy additional troops, McCain said, would have left "Iraq and our strategic position in the Middle East in ruins, risking a wider war in the near future."

The decision on whether to deploy additional troops "amounted to a real-time test for a future commander in chief," McCain said. "America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama's failed."

Yes, Obama cravenly acknowledged the American people’s disgust and dissatisfaction with this war while John (“I know how to win wars”) McCain just did what had to be done to make the war “winnable. And he wraps it all around our strategic position in the Middle East, which would lie in “ruins” after the American “retreat”.

Strategic position? Hmmm. Sounds important, it? Something better left to the “experts” like John McCain, not mere mortals.

As a strong adherent of Expertology, I do not readily accept the idea that others should do my thinking so I reject this idea of strategic position in the Middle East and, therefore any claim John McCain has regarding his qualification to be president. To my way of thinking, the high costs in blood, treasure and American values can only be justified (if at all, remember, I am militantly near-pacifist) for the most critical reasons. John McCain believes that Iraq is critical to America’s strategic position in the Middle East. A strategic position is essentially a position of strength and influence in one’s own interest. That interest may be commingled with others’ interests but in the end, a strategic position is for one’s own advantage. All well and good, that’s pretty much standard in any competition. American policy since 2003 has been long-term, aka permanent, military presence in Iraq. That’s what winning means to John McCain, just like CheneyBush before him.

And why do we need this long term military presence? McCain will cite reasons such as fighting terrorism, protecting Israel, deterring Iran and securing access to the region’s energy resources. According to McCain anything short of a “win” in Iraq will jeopardize any and all of these important interests. That’s why he said didn’t mind if American forces stayed in Iraq 100 years; he believes that this nation will need to “project force” in this region for decades to come. He intimated that Americans would not be fighting, that their mere presence would deter any threats to various and sundry American interests in the region, but in the end the whole point is to bring lethal force to bear on a particular situation. That’s what all the explosives are about.

In effect, McCain is calling for a 100 year surge, which is why he must adamantly insist that CheneyBush’s mere 15 month surge has been so successful and that he is so very qualified to serve as commander-in-chief. Of course, you would have to agree the “the surge” was a success. I don’t agree. (For an excellent perspective on the surge’s “success” see Brian Downing’s article in Asia times Online. ()) At best, the extra 30,000 troops secured the areas where they were deployed. Combined with the Sunni Awakening and Moqtada al-Sadr’s cease-fire, the extra troops put a cap on what had been an increasingly out of control, tit-for-tat violence. But their presence did nothing to address the underlying ethnic and sectarian divisions. Iraqi politicians and factions have so far been unable to use the past year to reconcile their differences. Whatever strategic position America seeks in Iraq is already at risk as America sends its sons and daughters to fight in Iraq so that the petroleum-based corporate dominated infrastructure and economy will not have to change.

Unlike John McCain, I believe America’s position in Iraq and the greater Middle East will be at risk in direct proportion to our presence in Iraq. Neither Iraqis nor most Americans want our forces to remain in that nation. Iraqis want to regain their own destinies, however, difficult and messy that may be. Whatever good will and hope American forces brought to Iraq in 2003 has long since been fully dissipated and, as America continues to pervade and direct that nation, Iraqis see their future as a “military asset” of the United States against their own neighbors and fellow Muslims. No Iraqi with any sense of their national heritage will ever accept that arrangement. Certainly no American would, if the circumstances were reversed..

I don’t doubt that America has interests in the Middle East. Nor do I doubt that other nations, including the locals, have interests in the region. What I do doubt is that extended and unwelcome foreign occupation is the best way will provide a strong, long term strategic position for the United States in the Middle East.

Now that I think about it, John McCain’s ability to “win wars” is irrelevant, if it exists at all. America is fighting a war because it occupies a foreign nation. Foreign occupiers never win. They bleed. John McCain does not understand that.

General Talk

John McCain on Barack Obama:

"I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time," McCain said, adding that "fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."

That's fine, John, if you're plotting military strategy. It's always good to talk to generals about plans and operations. Barack Obama (I hope) plans to end the war in Iraq, if not the occupation. He doesn't need a general to tell him that. He just needs to listen to the American people.

Obama can talk to the generals about operations and the military consequences of policy choices but in the end disengagement is a political, not military, decision. Generals are supposed to serve the national policy established by civilian political leaders, not vice-versa. By training and experience they tend toward violence, never a good first policy option and best used judiciously.

Barack Obama will travel to Iraq. I hope he learns more than John McCain did during his famous stroll through a Baghdad market.

The General, the Flyboy and the Grunt

Last week's personal events pretty much overshadowed other news for me. That, plus the lack of regular internet connection, so I caught very little of what took place outside of my own little world. I did, however, catch bits and pieces of General Wesley Clark's comments about John McCain and found nothing to disagree with in what the general said. Fred Kaplan sums up the affair as a combination of Clark's political ineptitude and a grunt's cynicism toward the flyboys. Kaplan gets it right, at least from this grunt's view (which is, of course, from the ground).

Among infantry soldiers I knew in Vietnam, one of the most disdainful epithets was "sleeps in a bed at night". As far as we knew, pilots flew missions and went home. Even our chopper pilots, who were at far greater risk than Navy or Air Force pilots, usually slept in beds at night. Unlike the flyboys, though, chopper pilots were often down and dirty in the fighting. For me, dismissing flyboys was not so much that I was tough and strong (sometimes I give into that illusion) but rather that I was getting screwed and they weren't.

Until they got really screwed--shot down, killed or captured. Dead is dead and captured is even worse. And John McCain got truly fucked over in Vietnam, far worse than I did. He, along with many others, suffered great hardship with honor. General Clark was candid in his admiration. I, too, will always admire John McCain's strength and courage. I certainly don't know that I would have done as well.

One reason I will always remember John McCain's Vietnam service is that he never stops reminding me of it. Like Clark, I don't believe McCain's service record is much preparation for the presidency (although his duty as Senate liaison for the Navy probably taught him to schmooze well). I go a step beyond Clark and say that McCain's record of honor and courage as a POW has been far less evident in his subsequent public life. Don't forget, John McCain is a son of privilege and has long relied on good connections (grandfather, father, the Hensley fortune, Arizona Big Business, lobbyists and a fawning press) to make his way in life. He is hot-tempered and reckless with a blind faith in the "free market" and Big Money to solve the nation's problems and military force to deal with the rest of the world. Expediency and self-interest are more associated in my mind with Senator John McCain. Honor and courage are Lieutenant Commander John McCain.

For me, McCain's experience as a congressman and senator is a far more reliable gauge of his potential as president than his military career. After all, he should have learned something during three decades in Washington. Apparently not, though. He's still a mindless militarist, an unreconstructed Cold Warrior, secure in the "faith of his fathers". The world has moved on. John McCain has not. I give him credit for working with John Kerry to restore diplomatic relations with Vietnam but other than that, I don't see actual accomplishments that give me any reason to think John McCain will offer much opportunity for the United States to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

Barack Obama certainly has his limitations and uncertainties but those arise from the possibility of change and his inexperience. John McCain will bring us more of the same. He has experience but his experience is wrong for America and the world.

The general was right.

Fair and Balanced in '08

Fellow blogger Jim Yeager is opting out of the political process this year. “Call me disabled”, he says. I call him sane, realistic and balanced. No doubt because he thinks like me. I, too, am alienated from the political process in this country. I still sign some petitions and make noise but less and less these days. I rarely call Congressional offices despite the cascade of email alerts from groups I support. I called Dennis Kucinich’s office last week to thank him for reading the articles of impeachment against George W. Bush, for being one Democrat willing to call this administration on its lies, manipulations and perversions of government and policy. But otherwise, I don’t have much faith in Constitutional government or democracy in the United States these days.

So why bother to excite myself about a political campaign that has already disappointed me?. The mantra from all sides is “Change” but that’s just a word that means pretty much more of the same. Continued domination by the corporate-military state in the United States and in the global economy. Rampant capitalism rapaciously exploiting the planet. Leaving behind a second hand world to future generations.

Jim’s disability will serve him well, especially if it frees him to explore his musical interests. He’ll find more purpose and satisfaction in that than spending time worrying about who wins another choreographed election filled with meaningless words and pseudo-issues that come nowhere near dealing with the challenges facing America in the coming years. He can still care about his country and the world. He doesn’t have to obsess about a meaningless horse race. He can smell the roses. And like me, he will vote, most likely for Obama. Certainly not McCain. So why waste time trying to make sense or purpose from something whose only sense and purpose is perpetuating the power elite?

Four years ago, I supported John Kerry enough to stand on a corner for a half hour during morning rush hour once a week waving signs at the passing traffic. It was fun and little effort. I phone banked, too. Arizona was not really in play but it had some potential. My support for Kerry was primarily that he was Not Bush. I still respected for him from 1971 but after 20 years in the Senate, I knew he was a cautious, conventional politician. I had no illusions. And, of course, he lost. That sucked. I phone banked a lot for Harry Mitchell two years later. He won as part of the Democratic surge but that turned out to suck, too.

This year I’ll vote. Washington has an August primary and my district has a progressive activist candidate challenging an entrenched Democratic Representative in Congress. The primary is a single primary where the top two candidates (regardless of party) advance to the general election so there’s some interesting possibility there. I’m pretty sure I’ll give some money to progressive candidates. But that’s about it. Not wasting time on pointless exercises will also allow me to take time to explore and experience this wonderful place where I live and spend time with people I love.

If that is disabled, I’ll take it.

Back to the Future

Is it just me or does John McCain look like Warren G. Harding? Except that the latter looks better for being 16 years younger in the portrait than St. John is now, sitting in that SUV with Cindy who these days is just shy of Gamaliel's age when he posed for the portrait.

Warren Harding is an ominous portent for a 71 year old man, especially since Harding was dead before he was 60. I think that to the extent that John McCain ever offered anything to this nation, it was eight years ago, before he signed on to the CheneyBush Shipwreck of State. Now he just wants to "never surrender", to "let America win it this time." And he is a handmaiden of corporate-military special interests. Nothing that's likely to be the change that America needs.

For what it's worth, I think Obama is the best of the Final Three. B He is of the coming generation who should have the opportunity to shape its future. McCain or Clinton is just passing generations hanging on to power well after it has become obvious that they have no real answers to the problems they leave behind. I would very much like to see a campaign that energizes young people. Obama has that potential. In a Democratic year, he could really blow the Republicans out of the water. Maybe even put to rest the "America won't vote for a non-white candidate". Even if he disappoints as president, just dismantling the Republican stranglehold on government would be a grand achievement.

Some Thoughts

The morning's news is replete with stories that beg for comment about the state of our nation and here I am too lazy to want to get into it all. But still...

The brouhaha about John McCain's "inappropriate relationship" with a young female lobbyist misses the mark entirely. The NYT article that broke the story suggests some sort of intimate relationship. Good for them, if that makes them happy. What John McCain does in private with his own or other's body parts is his own affair. I'd rather not think about it at all, if you don't mind. What John McCain does in his role as public official behind closed doors is every bit my business and here is where I find an inappropriate relationship. McCain is a "special interest whore" and has been since he came to Arizona and linked up with Charles Keating. Any questions about that are clearly answered in today's Washington Post. McCain is surrounded by special interests even as he claims he does them no favors. Right. I've got a hardly used bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you.

Pivoting from my friend John to one of his favorite causes--military strength--the United States stepped up the arms race in space by several notches with its satellite kill this week. The race has been on for some time but it's been more or less restrained since no nation wants be too far ahead of introducing man's violence into a whole new realm. Now that the US has demonstrated what it can do, other nations will be quickly looking for the same capability or effective countermeasures. Once again, as so often in the past 60 years, the United States--my fucking country using my fucking tax dollars--is the main promoter of arms escalation.

Although Germany started the nuclear arms race, America actually used nuclear weapons after Germany's defeat. American developed and deployed the first hydrogen bomb, long range bomber, intercontinental ballistic missile, multiply independent re-entry vehicle (multiple warheads on a single missile). Each action was intended to provide a qualitative advantage over the Soviet Union but the advantage lasted only until our adversary came up with an effective strategy. Same with the anti-satellite warfare. No other nation, especially emerging nations with wealth and resources, such as Russia and China will accept a US strategic advantage any longer than they have to. Hell, the arms race has been going on ever since the first hominid learned to sharpen a stick and make a spear. You'd think by now we'd learn that no advantage ever lasts.

Oh, wait. We're America. We always win. Right?

[editor's note: As I said at the beginning, I'm too damn lazy to post links to all my assertions. This is a rant. If you have any questions about my statements, leave a comment and I'll consider it.]

Update later that very same day: Since the hawks are claiming the satellite kill as validation for the Missile Defense System, Needlenose carefully denotes the full extent of that success.

Holiday From History

"Straight Talk" John McCain has begun to target Barak Obama as and inexperienced lightweight who would offer a "holiday from history". As an experienced heavyweight McCain claims to offer the nation the realistic security it requires.

Apparently, McCain's history is on permanent vacation and has been since, say 1984, as painfully detailed by Juan Cole.

Tell everyone you know.

My Meeting with John McCain, The Response

Back in April I corresponded with my senior US senator, John McCain, regarding American policy in Iraq and the Middle East. I sent him a "transcript" of the conversation I would like to have with him and asked to continue the discussion in person. Yesterday, I received a reply. The senator is unable to meet with me at this time.



The senator did, however, describe my letter as kind and thoughtful so we can assume that I did not misrepresent his positions on the issues I addressed. Unlike most letters I receive from the senator, this one had a real signature; the ink actually bled through the paper. No signature machine involved.

Perhaps during his final two years in the Senate, he will have more time. I'll check back.

Can You Get Any More Cynical?

John McCain, quoted in a NYT article about the way candidates avoid their own histories:

Others have been haunted by their legislative history. Mr. McCain has been attacked over the McCain-Feingold law by a host of Republicans, including Mr. Romney, during both candidates’ debates.

In an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News last month, Mr. McCain characterized campaign finance as a Beltway issue.

“Outside of Washington, I never have anybody stand up and talk about McCain-Feingold,” he said. “There’s nobody who ever does.” Himself included.

postscript

John McCain is no longer St. John McCain in Unsolicited Opinion. He is no longer the annointed media candidate, the man of straigtht talk and candor. McCain has become instead a slavish panderer. Those of us who have known him throughout his career in Arizona are not surprised. That's the John we've always seen. What surprised us was his media dieification in 2000. The years since have seen McCain returning to his familiar ways. Now he's an also-ran.

My Meeting with John McCain

[As an Arizonan, I have the dubious honor of being represented by John McCain. As an American, I have the Constitutional right to petition my government. Regular readers know that I have been busily petitioning and carrying on a dialogue of sorts with my senior senator. I would really like to meet and talk with him but he has been unwilling to meet with other anti-war activists so I haven't actually requested a meeting since I don't think that request will be honored. John McCain is a Very Important Person, very busy--too busy to subject himself to my questions.

Instead of an in-person meeting, I met with the senator in the very favorable venue of my own head and tried to present the kind of responses he would offer to my questions and comments. This long dialogue is the result of that meeting. I will send a copy to the senator's office. If he responds in any way, I post that response (without additional comment intitially but I do reserve the right to comment in a subsequent post). In the meantime, here's the result of the imagined meeting.]


Me: “Senator McCain, I’m Mark Fleming. Thanks for taking the time to meet with me.

McCain: “My pleasure, Mr. Fleming. As senator from Arizona, I believe it’s important to hear constituents’ views and tell them how I represent those views and Arizona’s interests in Washington. May I call you Mark? We can be less formal in our discussion (and the guy writing this will type less). Call me John.”

Me: “Thanks, John. I know you are busy and can’t meet one-on-one with every Arizonan but I do think I am sufficiently familiar with national and international affairs to speak intelligently and offer alternatives that merit your consideration, and I believe, your support, if you want America to succeed in this world.”

McCain: “Is that your goal, Mark, to see America succeed? What do you mean by American ‘success’?”

Me: “You ask a broad question so I’ll offer a broad answer. American success is the freedom to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. For everyone. Everywhere. Always.”

McCain: “Nice sentiment. What’s it mean in practice?”

Me: “Well, John, I’m a simple man. I think it means just what it says, that all persons have certain unalienable rights, ‘endowed by their Creator’ and, further, that they can act to secure those rights, individually or in concert with others. For me as an individual, it means exercising those rights in a way that does not limit others’ ability to do the same. In the world at large, I expect the same of my country. It’s simple when you look at it like that.”

McC: “The world is not simple. And certainly there are people in this world who are hostile to the idea of individual liberty and will enthusiastically take advantage of an open and welcoming attitude like yours. We must protect ourselves from those who mean us harm.”

Me: “I know that. History is filled with too much mayhem and straight out evil for anyone to naively assume that individuals and societies will always act with reason, understanding and non-violence. The world can be a dangerous place. That said, I am not content to live in a world where fear and violence is the norm. I can at least imagine, as John Lennon said. Or like Robert Kennedy, I can ask, “Why not?”

McC: “I share that vision. America is a world leader. Has been for 60 years now. Madeline Albright correctly described the US as the ‘indispensable nation’. As your senator, I must deal with the world as it is, not as I might wish it were. I must be coldly realistic. That is my solemn duty.”

Me: “Duty. That’s a big deal in your life.”

McC: “You don’t grow up in a Navy family without acquiring a sense of duty. I take pride in serving my country. My grandfather was a World War II admiral. My father followed in his footsteps. Serving my country seemed like the right thing to do. My background gave me opportunities worked out well for me. I got to fly. And I served my country with honor.”

Me: “I know your basic story but recently learned about your “hunter-killer” missions. Minstrel Boy told me about them and your reputation for cool competence. To be honest, as a grunt, I tend to discount pilots; we didn’t see much of you guys where we were and you got to sleep in a bed at night. Until you were shot down. That singles you and your fellow prisoners of war for recognition. Your bravery and determination under very difficult conditions demonstrated a true sense of honor. I would be proud (in a non-aggrandizing manner, of course) to have such an accomplishment in my background.”

McC: “You also served, Mark. You did your duty.”

Me: “Nothing like you. Had I shown your courage, I would have refused to serve. I did not believe the war was in the national interest so the honorable course would have been to say no when my country asked me to kill. You can say, at least, that you believed in what you were doing. Hell, I doubt if you would have survived as a prisoner had you not believed. I was very conflicted because I also had a sense of duty and some interest in GI Bill education benefits. In the end I took the easy way out and lucked my way through combat for five months until I got a relatively safe rear job and went home. My experience left me angry and bitter that I had surrendered my humanity by killing in a war that should have never begun and should have ended well before I got caught up in it.”

McC: “We come away from Vietnam with different experiences and different lessons.”

Me: “Not surprising. We went in with different experiences and understanding. I can only assume that you believed in the war.”

McC: “Of course, I did. It was my duty. My father was commanding the fleet. I can’t recall ever saying it myself, but didn’t your ROTC college room mate say something like, ‘It’s not much of a war but it’s the only one we’ve got.’? We wanted in on the action. That’s what we trained for. It’s what we can do well for our country. I wanted to serve. I understand your room mate was also a fighter pilot.”

Me: “Yeah, he flew A-7's in Cambodia in 72 or 73. Was shot down once but managed a crash landing near his base. He wrote me that he did well in bombing and strafing school and seemed to enjoy it. Did the “blowing shit up” factor add excitement to the job? I recall a certain guilty thrill when I fired heavy infantry weapons and rockets. I can only imagine what an A-6 is like.

McC: “As you can imagine, it’s quite a powerful machine. But it can also be vulnerable to good anti-aircraft fire. It’s also a deadly serious business. As a fighter-bomber pilot, you attack for a reason. You are unleashing deadly force against enemies. Yeah, flying is exciting. You don’t become a Naval aviator if you want a quiet life.”

Me: “What did it feel like to know you were killing other human beings?”

McC: “They were military targets. Enemy forces who were acting against America or its allies in Vietnam. Those were my orders.”

Me: “That’s a key difference. I didn’t see them as enemies.”

McC: “They would have killed you in a New York minute.”

Me: “I know that. It would’ve pissed me off royally, given what I felt about the war. But their hostility was nothing personal. I guess they may have hated me as a foreign occupier but not because I was Mark Fleming, son of Frank and Kay Fleming of Danville, Virginia and 1970 University of Virginia graduate. They hated me for what I was doing in their country. I hated myself for the same reason. Did you hate the Vietnamese when you attacked them?”

McC: “It wasn’t a matter of hatred. I was executing a mission against enemy forces.”

Me: “You never asked why they were ‘enemies’?”

McC: “Above my pay grade.”

Me: “Mine, too, but as a citizen I have the right, and I would say, duty to ask that question. Hell, John, I have to ask it as a human being when that kind of violence is unleashed in my name or when I am asked to become part of that violence.”

McC: “That’s not part of the curriculum for a military officer. You and I both know that would be dangerous. You can’t have an effective military where everyone can question everything. Even worse, you don’t want to compromise civilian control of the military.”

Me: “Here’s another difference between you and me. I think even military personnel should always ask questions. Junior officers and enlisted personnel can serve as a military’s conscience. I don’t mean resistance, although that has a place in appropriate circumstances, but offering a moral compass, a reminder of what’s right. That’s what finally brought both My Lai and Abu Ghraib to light. At the top of the pay scale, I expect senior officers to offer frank, candid information based on their knowledge and experience to civilian leadership. But that doesn’t mean compromising civilian control. That’s why the Framers created a Navy but not a standing army. They knew the danger of a permanent military class.

McC: “Times have changed, Mark. The United States would be at grave risk without a standing army in the modern world.”

Me: “Why not a world without armies?”

McC: ”That’s preposterous.”

Me: “Why?”

McC: “We’d be at risk. The US demobilized after WWII and the Communists conquered China, invaded Korea, threatened the Philippines, southeast Asia and central Europe. America was the only nation still standing after the war. America has a responsibility to contribute to world security. You only have to look at history to know what happens without a strong America.”

Me: “As much as I would like to see a world without armaments and war, I know that we need to be prepared to defend ourselves. It’s in the Constitution and is one of the reasons that individuals with unalienable rights agree to limit those rights by joining together in a society. In a world of nation states, military force may be necessary to preserve that society. But I consider the most effective military to be one that is used sparingly, if at all. I may have the right to kill in self-defense but that is not a right I ever want to exercise. I prefer to keep away from those situations. I want my country to do the same.”

McC: “You seem to live in some kind of fantasy world. The United States cannot simply ignore a real world filled with hostile states and clandestine organizations all bent on our destruction.”

Me: “I’m not suggesting that America ignore the world. I simply want America to engage the world differently. I know we have adversaries. That’s what they are to me: adversaries, opponents. Not enemies. Enemy implies perpetual hatred. I do not hate anyone, even temporarily. I may dislike what they do. Their actions may disappoint and anger me. I may believe they think poorly, if at all, but none of that is hatred. I would rather talk, educate, negotiate and understand than attack and kill.”

McC: “Try negotiating with Mohammad Atta and the 9-11 killers. You can’t change a mind like that with reason and ideals.”

Me: That was 19 guys who attacked us. Looking past them to Al-Qaeda and allied groups that plan and carry out violent attacks, I don’t see much opportunity to negotiate. They are the bad guys to disrupt and destroy. But these organizations are criminal syndicates that combine violence with religion and nationalism ideas to further their political goals. The world has long experience thwarting and disrupting these kind of activities and that experience has rarely involved major, extended military commitment.

McC: "You seem to think that the only adversary, if you will, are these stateless organizations. Iran is right next door to Iraq. Iran has been hostile to this nation for three decades. Syria has long been a threat. Hamas threatens Israel and is increasing its strength in Lebanon. Negotiation and diplomacy are all very nice, but the United States cannot afford to play only defense in this critical region. That’s why we need to win in Iraq, to maintain regional stability.

Me: “Have you ever asked why Iran or Syria or any other country is hostile to the United States? That's not above your pay grade any more.”

McC: “They are hostile. They support our opponents. Iran is threatening the region with nuclear weapons. What more evidence do you need?”

Me: “I want to know why they are hostile. These nations and for that matter even Al-Qaeda must have some reason for acting against the US in the region. They must believe it’s in their interest to do so. Understanding those root causes will help us respond effectively to their challenges and threats."

McC: “They don’t believe in freedom. They want to impose their ideas on everyone. Just like the Communists. Islamic fundamentalists may lack the weaponry and reach of the Soviet Union, but as a clandestine and well financed organization, they are capable of creating great instability, putting America’s interests in jeopardy.”

Me: “What do you mean when you say ‘America’s interests”?

McC: "Secure from attack, secure in our economy, secure in the free society envisaged by the Framers."

Me: “That’s not unlike my definition of American success: the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness, for everyone, everywhere.”

McC: “Yours seems somewhat broader. I don’t see anything specific to America. It sounds like you’re talking about the entire world.”

Me: “Yeah, I am. I do that for two reasons. One is spiritual: I cannot refuse to share my wealth and good fortune with those who have nothing. America has wealth and a society that has grown more open and tolerant throughout most of its history, at least until recently. That wealth and tradition should be shared with the world to promote freedom and success for all. I’m not talking about self- or national-abnegation here; just reasonable sharing and cooperation, whether individuals in a society or nations that share this planet. I also recognize that sharing must be based on mutual benefit and an understanding of the differences among societies.

My second reason is practical. A society where some have all and most have little is inherently unstable. Marx was certainly right in predicting the results of exploitation and immiseration–at some point, the many dispossessed will simply take the wealth they are denied. Marx wasn’t so good at coming up with a solution but he was spot on about the dire consequences of economic inequality. The more unequal the wealth, the more likely the have-nots will reach a point of desperation and simply take the wealth they are denied. The world saw the terrible results of despair in Revolutionary France and Russia during and after World War I. Even American capitalism was at risk from despairing masses during the Great Depression, saved only by the New Deal and World War II. I think that makes a practical case for policies that reduce gross inequality in wealth.”

McC: “Now you’re sounding like a leftist, Mark.”

Me: “You say that like it’s something bad. I think I sound like a human being and American who has a sense of justice and history. I am a leftist because I find ideals and policies that match my values. I began my political activity as a Goldwater conservative and much of what he said about individual liberty still resonates with me.”

McC: “Well, as a United States senator and, I hope, president, I have a duty to look out for America’s interests first. The United States has vital interests around the world and it’s my duty to protect them as best I can to the best of my ability.”

Me: “I couldn’t agree more, John. But I do question how well you and the President Bush are doing that right now. I see America becoming less competitive in the world. I see American jobs and cash moving overseas. The US dollar is no longer the world’s sole reserve currency. The number of terror attacks around the world since 9-11 has increased. I see a war that was started on false pretenses creating a generation of enmity for the United States in the Muslim world. I see our soldiers and Marines held hostage to Iraqi political stalemate and in-fighting among Iraqi factions.”

McC: “Everyone thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We didn’t invade based on lies, just poor information. And even in the absence of the weapons, we got rid of a brutal tyrant. What we didn’t do was send enough troops or manage the war better. We accomplished our invasion handily. President Bush and his advisors bungled the post-invasion.”

Me: “Everyone thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction because that’s what the administration insisted over and over was the case. I don’t know if the administration erred through willful distortion or blind ignorance. Neither scenario speaks well of the president. As for the post-invasion, the president and his advisors were wholly unprepared for what they got into. They should have known. Hell, I did. Saddam even told the world that the real fight would begin after the invasion. Wasn’t anybody listening?”

McC: “We should have sent more troops. I’ve been saying that for a long time.’

Me: “You mean like the three to four hundred thousand Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki recommended before he was cashiered?”

McC: “Certainly more than we went in with.”

Me: “You weren’t all that vocal at the time. I can’t recall hearing you arguing strongly against the invasion plan. I don’t remember you calling for more troops in 2003 and 2004 as the insurgency grew.”

McC: “I was supporting my commander-in-chief in pursing America’s national security. When duty calls, it’s imperative that we all pull together. I made my views known without fanfare.”

Me: “Remember what I said earlier about senior commanders speaking out truthfully? I think that is what you failed to do. Maybe you did go hammer and tong with the president, vice-president and SecDef. If you were so sure that they were sending insufficient troops into Iraq, should you not have spoken out publicly and supported the General Shinseki’s assessment of troop strength? You had high credibility with much of the nation and are recognized as informed on military and international affairs. Unlike military commanders, you don’t have to fear for your career by challenging what you consider erroneous policy and action. I expect that from my public officials. You were silent at a critical time. Look at what your silence wrought!”

McC: “You’re blaming me for bungling Iraq?”

Me: “Yes, you certainly contributed to the fiasco. Had you insisted on adequate force prior to the invasion, Americans would have been at least somewhat more informed about its costs. I say somewhat because I don’t believe that America could ever successfully occupy Iraq after an invasion. I think sooner or later Iraqi sectarian, ethnic and nationalist sentiments would have led to resistance and civil war with Americans caught in the political and actual crossfire. But that’s not part of the debate any more. The debate is now about how to end the mayhem and destruction.”

McC: “We can’t leave the field to our enemies. That would be irresponsible and dangerous. It would lead to catastrophe.”

Me: “Enemies. Catastrophe. You use those words a lot. I don’t have enemies.”

McC: “Adversaries, then. They still want to kill and harm us. I will not leave them free to do harm America. That’s the catastrophe I’m warning against. America cannot retreat from the world.”

Me: “You forget that I strongly support American engagement with the world. I just prefer that it not be at the point of a bayonet. That doesn’t mean surrender or retreat. It means clearly understanding our interests and how we work with other nations to secure those interests. In the long run it’s a far more sustainable policy than military intervention and occupation.“

McC: “And then you wake up in the real world when America is threatened.”

Me: “Threatened by what? The Iraqi resistance? They are only a threat as long as we are in their country. When we leave, that threat is no more.”

McC: “If we leave anarchy and a hostile regime in place, Iraq will threaten us for a long time.” Al-Qaeda is there. They will attack us wherever they can.”

Me: “And we can monitor, harass and disrupt their operations with international cooperation, effective intelligence and targeted operations. And more than likely, Iraqi nationalists will turn against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters and expel them.”

McC: “And they will simply migrate to other countries to cause trouble. If we don’t destroy them in Iraq, terrorism will metastasize like a cancer.”

Me: “John, that has already happened. Terrorism migrated to Iraq when we opened that front. It continues in Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Africa and Asia. Cells are active throughout Europe, I am sure. Occupying Iraq has only increased the hatred and anger that creates terrorism. I have no illusions about eradicating terrorism. It’s a tactic as old as warfare, which we both know is all too much a part of human history. I believe we can contain terrorism and mitigate its impact but the world will still suffer casualties from terrorist attacks.”

McC: “You would leave America vulnerable to another 9-11? It sounds like you accept a world where terrorists are free to operate.”

Me: “Not free to operate. I expect my government to protect this nation from terrorism but at a reasonable cost. I strongly believe that’s possible. We have identified and disrupted real and wanna-be plots. The British have done the same. I think the record shows that if someone had been paying attention prior to 9-11, we may well have stopped that attack. There were a lot of red flags. We could have done a lot more then and we can do more to make effective use of real intelligence and analysis to protect this nation. And we can do so without abandoning Constitutional government that has been our signature contribution to the world.”

McC: "You have the leisure to be naive. I have a duty to protect America. If that means taking risks seeking a better future, so be it. I would not be serving my country if I did less."

Me: “You would be serving your country far more if you were to really think about how America engages the world and begin looking past your neo-Cold War militarism as a model for foreign policy in the 21st century. You would be doing quite a bit to protect America by pursuing diplomatic, economic and cultural initiatives rather than waging war.”

McC: “Sometimes war is necessary and inevitable. You are dreaming if you think we can do without a military.”

Me: “I acknowledge that need but I also acknowledge the responsibility to use that military as a last resort, when all other options are exhausted. I expect the men and women who lead that military–including you, John–to not waste the patriotism and sacrifice if its armed forces in unnecessary wars.”

McC: “I’m a senator. I don’t lead the military.”

Me: “You’ve built your career based on your military expertise. You've certainly presesnted yourself as a miltary expert. I expect you as a veteran and a man who served with honor and courage to recognize the special duty we have to the nation and the men and women who serve in our military. That duty is to make their sacrifices meaningful. Looking at what America has done to Iraq, I don’t think we can say that about their sacrifice. Our troops want that meaning very much. When you sacrifice your humanity, when you descend into the depravity of combat, it MUST mean something. Otherwise, you’re just a killer.”

McC: “I have always respected and honored our military.”

Me: “Iraq doesn’t speak well of your respect.”

McC: “That statement impugns our troops and me.”

Me: “It certainly does impugn you, John. I most certainly does not impugn our troops, their courage or their sacrifice. Sending them on an unnecessary mission, without the equipment and training they need, asking them to sacrifice life and soul in a fruitless war impugns only those who send them. That’s you, John, with a lot of company.”

McC: “Those troops want to serve America. I’ve talked to them. They want to succeed. You would deny them that victory.”

Me: “All troops want to serve. That’s why they volunteered. They are can-do, gung-ho patriotic Americans who believe in their country and want to contribute. I’ve heard them, too, John. I know that many believe in their mission. From the lowliest private up through the generals, the military wants to perform, it relishes challenge. So a well respected general like David Petraeus is willing to make an effort if given the opportunity and a reasonable level, even if the odds are long, because the president asked him to. That can-do spirit is what makes the military such a valuable resource. What makes it effective is strong leadership that knows when and how to use that military in the nation’s best interests. You and President Bush failed to do that in Iraq. An unnecessary invasion has become a homicidal nightmare.”

McC: "We must challenge America’s enemies wherever they threaten us. You just don’t seem to understand, Mark."

Me: "You don’t understand, John. I have no enemies."

McC: "America faces serious challenges from some dangerous adversaries. I call them enemies. You are hopelessly naive and trusting in a hostile world. You would risk America’s security."

Me: "Frankly, I think you are pursuing a hopeless, self-defeating policy that will only put America further at risk by sowing a generation’s worth of hatred around the world at a high cost to American troops, their families and taxpayers."

McC: "I think we’ve reached an impasse here. I can’t agree with you. Nor, it seems, are you willing to listen to me."

Me: "I’ve listened to you for years but don’t think the policies you advocate serve America's long term interests."

McC: "If we’re done, then, it’s time to get back on the Straight Talk Express. I need to take my message to America. It’s not too late for this nation to wake up to the danger."

Me: "Actually, John, I think America is beginning to wake up, if not to my leftist universalism, at least then to the futility of the war you so vigorously support."

McC: "Thanks for joining me, Mark. Don’t let the door swat you on the way out."

Me: "You’re welcome, John. It’s been interesting. Be careful making those hard right turns on the Express. You could end up in a ditch."

More McCain

John McCain launched his retrofitted campaign yesterday with an opinion piece in the Washington Post. McCain argues that the war in Iraq has been terribly bungled but is on the road to victory now, "the surge" is showing signs of progresss. Among his claims:

For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

Your comment suggests that it's safe to drive now. My question is how many troops and helicopters escorted you along that route, John? Is it secure for high value targets all the time? Was your plane able to land without the gut-wrenching corkscrew descent needed to frustrate attackers?

For the first time, we met with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who are working with American and Iraqi forces to combat al-Qaeda.

Actually, the Sunni tribal leaders have never been big fans of al-Qaeda except insofar as they can make common cause against American occupiers. Few anlayts expect al-Qaeda to have much future in Iraq once US troops are gone.

Extremist Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces, sectarian violence has dropped in Baghdad and we are working with the Shiite mayor of Sadr City.

Thousands of Moqtada supporters rallied today and heard him say,

"Iraqi Army and Police: Do not get drawn in behind the Occupier. For it is an obvious enemy to you." He said, "The armies of darkness represented by the Occupation forces, and more especially the great evil, America, have begun sowing the seeds of comflict, whether openly or through their agents--who have sold their land and their honor."

Iraqi army and police forces are increasingly fighting on their own and with American forces, and their size and capability are growing. Iraqi army and police casualties have increased because they are fighting more.

Here's how one returning Ameican describes our Iraqi partners:

...Christensen said the worst violence was saved for Iraqi groups that assisted in the American reconstruction of the country, such as the Iraqi Security Forces. “If there is one group of people that they hate more than us, it’s the Iraqi Army,” he said. “If they catch wind that one of our convoys is working with the Iraqi Army, they’ll fight to the death. You take a few minutes for yourself before you (leave the base) on missions like that.”

Despite these welcome developments, we should have no illusions. This progress is not determinative. It is simply encouraging. We have a long, tough road ahead in Iraq. But for the first time since 2003, we have the right strategy. In Petraeus, we have a military professional who literally wrote the book on fighting this kind of war. And we will have the right mix and number of forces.


I could have sworn you wanted a LOT more troops for "the surge" but now I guess the lower number works for you. As for the right strategy, I recall it was the right strategy 40 years ago against another insurgency under another set of bright and capable generals. I'm still skeptical.

And finally, John, perhaps after touring with General Petraeus you could spend some time with Iraqi bloggers or this British officer.

Laundry Matters

In my observations about John McCain yesterday, I omitted the use of an interesting word--"brainwashed"--by one commentator. From the Salem, Oregon StatesmanJournal:

Frankly, there was a time when I admired John McCain. However, it sure looks to me like he's accepted some sort of brainwashing provided free of charge and administered under careful guidance by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Actually, I think that whatever has happened to him in the last couple of years proves that he's not only lost his ability for objective judgment but also is downright dangerous to the health and welfare of our troops. He has become what appears to me a real threat to the survival of U.S. forces in any form that resembles what we've counted on to protect us in past times.

Brainwashing can be hazardous for presidential candidates. Ask Mitt Romney about his dad.

Word to Word with John McCain

John McCain is running as the War Candidate, presenting himself as the the effective warrior who will bring victory to America. I, for one, am pleased to see McCain finally being all he can be. As a constituent, I look forward to a steady dialogue with my senator on this important topic. The first installment previously appeared in this space. So will future installments.

McCain's embrace of war is his attempt to call America to her destiny, to be Winston Churchill standing resolute against imminent danger. But if he will send our sons and daughters to war, then he must also tell us what their deaths will achieve that other solutions will not. MeCain claims that more agression, more troops and more resolve will prevent catastrophe. He says this after four years of catastrophe that ranks among the greatest strategic blunder in American history and the greatest failure presidential leadership since Buchanan. I do not think any political arrangements brokered by American forces and their Green Zone Iraqi allies will last much beyond our departure. The Iraqis live there, they can afford to wait us out. So John McCain needs to be describing his end game for Iraq as he calls the nation to this task. I think his fear of terrorism is far too great and that America has non-military options that can do at least as well as our occupation. I sure plan to press these and other questions to him.

This debate seems to be my destiny, an opportunity to serve my country in a meaningful way. In that respect, debating John McCain on the goals and purposes of American foreign policy may be a step in my journey to and from Vietnam. I went to Vietnam because my country asked me to and I was afraid to say no. I wanted to have a voice in my country and feared refusing service would limit my voice. So I went and passively endured the loss of my humanity. Having lost my innocence for that reason, I redeem my honor by speaking out as a veteran against war and mindless militarism. I have done so in various ways over the years, starting with a Veterans for McGovern bumpersticker and my LTE of the Richmond Times-Dispatch protesting William Westmoreland's "stabbed in the back speech" at the dedication of the memorial to Virginia's Vietnam War dead. Debating John McCain will be nothing new. I am pleased that fate has brought me to McCain as a constituent at this time. If the truth be known, though, I'd rather have a senator that does not so reflexively support war and aggression as the deciding factor in America's future. But circumstances brought McCain and me together in Arizona. So be it.

My education, including Vietnam, and professional experience have taught me many things. One of the most important is to use scarce resources wisely for the common good, an ideal embodied in the Preamble to the US Constitution. I have followed public affairs actively since the mid 1960's. I was trained to identify and measure results of public sector efforts. I believe I am as well qualified as John McCain to determine my country's future. (Okay, I don't get the on-site briefings in Iraq that McCain is privy to but he doesn't seem to use that information very well so I don't think that gives him an advantage.)

When I cast a cold eye on the American occupation of Iraq, it becomes simply an effort on behalf of the nation, on my behalf and my neighbors'. Unlike building a highway or operating a library, this effort demands our lives and national honor--our soul--along with money. It's a high price to pay. My cold eye demands a return equal to the sacrifice and I see none. Perhaps I am obtuse and resistant. After all, I never thought invading Iraq was a good idea. That's not the issue now. The issue now is the way forward and certainly an unsustainable, objectionable occupation will not take anyone forward in Iraq. I want John McCain to tell me why, what good it is doing our nation? I bet this nation can achieve greater (not absolute but arguably better)security sooner by ending the occupation. I don't think John McCain can convince me otherwise. I am listening. I will also ask questions. I'm good at that.

It will be fun.


some afterthoughts:


The article about McCain has some interesting quotes, few of which give me any confidence in his judgment.

"Iraq is the most important issue facing the country," said Brian Jones, McCain's communications director. "John McCain is going to continue to talk about how we achieve victory in Iraq."

Iraq is important but THE most important? Umm, I think sustaining life, prosperity and economic justice in a changing world is more important. I think that helping America remain competitive in a global economy. Iraq has oil. Sure we need oil but didn't Republicans used to talk about markets? Isn't oil and resource allocation a market issue? What's with the armies and blowing shit up? I don't believe that is a particularly efficient market mechanism. And most of the violence and mayhem in Iraq is home grown. What terrorist threats that are likely to result from the Iraq civil war should be within the capability of a powerful First World nation, especially if we work with other nations of the world.

"Of course I am going to misspeak and I've done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future."

Not a quality I normally look for in a candidate. But at least he's telling the truth. We here in Arizona know that his military judgment questionable ever since he became close personal friends with fellow fighter pilot and flying ace, Duke Tully, publisher of the Arizona Republic,godfather for a McCain child, who turned out to have acquired all of his military background at surplus stores. McCain just cannot see past lies. No wonder he misspeaks.

"This is about moving forward and doing what's necessary to make John McCain president," said Terry Nelson, his campaign manager. "We want to talk broadly about the challenges this country faces. That has not been done in a systematic way by any candidate, so far."

It's always been about making something of John McCain, war hero, congressman, senator and now president. If McCain, who has supported this war from the beginning hasn't systematically explained the why this war makes sense for America, I don't think he's likely to make a good case after for years of failure.

And finally, what is the etiquette for publishing correspondence with a public offical. I consider that correspondence to be public record. Do I need to inform him that his words, or lack thereof, will appear on this blog? I am open to advice. I most certainly want to do right by everyone in this matter.

Communicating with My Senator

A while back I posted a letter I sent to John McCain taking him to task for insisting that questioning the war would discourage Americans serving In Iraq. My brother asked me to note if McCain responded. Last week, I received a letter dated 13 February from Senator McCain. Obviously, Congressional mail takes a while but his response did make its way to my mailbox.

The letter is basically a refrain of everything CheneyBush and McCain has been telling the country for the past five years,talking points with all the familiar words--Saddam, 9-11, victory, security, catastrophic, consequences, fail, troops--but not much else. And maybe he really believes it. As a war veteran, I am disappointed that a fellow veteran still believes in war. As a constituent, I do not believe that he well represents me or even a majority of Arizonans.

Needless to say, I do not plan to let St. John have the last word. I have prepared an annotated version of his letter and will further edit my comments for a response. Or maybe just let him have the whole thing. He said he appreciated learning my views on this important subject. Senator McCain's letter is in regular type. My response is in bold. (Hey, it's my blog. I can highlight my ideas if I want to.)



Thank you for contacting me regarding Iraq. I appreciate learning your views on this important issue.

This is a critical moment in Iraq's post-Saddam history. The war in Iraq has not gone as well as we have hoped, and we have made mistakes that cost us dearly. I continue to believe, however, that the President was right to bring Saddam's brutal and dangerous regime to an end.

No he was not. America’s authority for a pre-emptive attack was dubious from the start. Iraq was a problem, not a threat, in 2002-2003. Many reasonable alternatives could have been pursued before launching a war that, as you say “has cost America dearly”. The President’s ever changing justifications for the war are as much evidence of his complete failure to plan for the post-invasion as are the cascade of blunders he has orchestrated in Iraq since the invasion. The end of Saddam’s brutal regime has given way in four years to a failed state, riven with all too predictable ethnic and sectarian strife. Iraq was not a failed State under Saddam. Troublesome, yes (and I know from history that America contributed to the trouble) but Iraq was hardly the charnel house that it has become under American occupation.

America is enormously invested in the outcome of the conflict in Iraq. Our national security and the strength of our international partnerships depend on the outcome of this war. If we should withdraw precipitously from Iraq, we risk creating a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, a situation that would enable terrorists to train and plan attacks against the united states with impunity. We saw just such a situation develop in Afghanistan after international disengagement from that country, and it contributed to the events of 9/11. By turning over security to the as-yet unprepared Iraqi forces, we threaten to plunge that country into a full scale civil war that could destabilize the entire Middle East and invite intervention from Iraq regional neighbors. If we do not succeed in lraq, we would send our partners and our enemies the same message: America has neither the capability nor the will to sustain its operations through to victory.

You assume that the only form of engagement in Iraq is American occupation. I, for one, would prefer to see the kind of international engagement that may well have prevented Afghanistan from descending into chaos after the Soviets abandoned their occupation of that country and the world lost interest, the kind of engagement recommended by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission. And remember, too, that Afghanistan gave Al-Qaeda haven to plan the 9-11 attacks, the President and his administration failed to recognize any number of warnings of an impending action.

A failed state in the Middle East won’t be the first the world has had to deal with. Nor is it likely to be the last. That kind of chaos allows terrorists and other brigands to organize, plan and finance hostile actions against all nations. You are correct that America and the world community need to respond to the threats created by failed states. However, our policy in Iraq since 2003 offers no model that I think any sane person would recommend. The never-large-to-begin-with and now-dwindling “Coalition of the Willing” clearly demonstrates that most nations believe they can deal with terrorism and the instability of failed states in other, less destructive ways.

I prefer that my country support a policy of constructive disengagement from military operations in Iraq in furtherance of regional and diplomatic initiatives to contain the damage from Iraq’s civil war. This is not precipitous withdrawal but simply changing what has been a horribly counterproductive policy. Instead of squandering more lives and treasure, the United States could use those resources far more effectively to protect itself from the real threats to our national security, such as America’s ability to compete and contribute in a globalized world.

Moreover, Iraq was not a failed state prior to our invasion. It was brutal but stable. Now Iraq is brutal and unstable because the President led America into a war that he did not understand, a war that the US military, for all its prowess, was ill-prepared to fight. Instead of the clear-cut, specific mission the President promised and once declared “accomplished”, American forces are caught in a civil war among indigenous forces, criminal gangs and foreign fighters who find Iraq a convenient battleground against America. Had you and the President told the American people that four years on the war you would still be uncertain of success, the war would have never started.

The danger of instability spreading across the Middle East is a risk that America, the United Nations and the nations of the region will have to deal with through diplomacy, frank exchange mutual security agreements that address conflicts and interests in ways that encourage cooperation and trade rather than conflict. As difficult as that may be, it is preferable to continued war and death.

Your language about lack of will and victory is as hollow now as it was 40 years ago when Lyndon Johnson escalated American involvement in Vietnam. That, too, was a crisis with “dire consequences if America failed to show the will to victory”. And yet the consequences, when this nation finally had enough after 15 years of war, were minimal. Dire consequences certainly for the Vietnamese and Americans who were killed, injured and tortured during and after the war but hardly the catastrophic national failure we were asked to fight and sacrifice for.

In light of the dire situation in Iraq, there is much agreement that a political solution is necessary. But we must also realize that it is simply impossible for meaningful political- and economic activity to take place in an environment riddled with violence as Baghdad today. Security is the precondition for political and economic progress.

Security may be a precondition for political and economic progress but when no party has the ability to ensure the needed security, political accommodation then becomes a precondition to security. Short of several hundreds of thousands of American troops, our forces will be unable to provide the security you advocate. Perhaps a much larger force—the 350 to 400 thousand recommended by General Shinseki in 2003--would have created the security needed for political and economic progress in the immediate post-invasion period but that window quickly closed when the all too predictable nationalist, sectarian and criminal elements were given great latitude by the inability of our occupation force to secure public facilities, weapons caches and vital infrastructure. The situation has long since passed beyond anything our military can control short of draconian measures that neither the American public, Iraqis or the world community would find acceptable.

Whether the troop levels prescribed in President Bush's new plan for Iraq will be sufficient to accomplish all that our leaders ask of our troops remains an open question in my mind. I cannot guarantee this new strategy will bring success. But I am certain that we will face potentially catastrophic consequences if we fail.

American military disengagement from Iraq will be no more catastrophic than the situation we already face. Nor will it be a failure or abdication of responsibility. Rather, disengagement will enable this nation to rebuild its military and allow the United States to pursue actual terrorist threats rather than sacrificing its sons and daughters in a cause that does nothing to meet the goals you claim to seek. No doubt more Iraqis will die and that is truly regrettable, a consequence of the forces so blindly unleashed by the President’s ill-advised policy of regime change. I often think that the only reason for continuing the occupation is to keep the war’s architects from having to acknowledge a grievous error that has wasted so much.

I make no apology for calling the American effort a waste. Nothing that has been or may be accomplished in the Iraq war and occupation could not have been achieved without the death and carnage my nation has inflicted on another, without the loss of so much life and limb. That to me is a waste.

It is no failure of America’s service men and women to call their sacrifice a waste. Soldiers sacrifice, you and I both know that. It’s up to leaders to give meaning and value to that sacrifice. President Bush and his administration have wasted that sacrifice. After four years of failure, the time has come to force the issue without more carnage and destruction. The Iraqi government is little more than a figurehead controlled by a militant majority with the avowed intent of disenfranchising and impoverishing a powerful a minority that does not accept that fate and has no good reason to stop fighting. And our sons and daughters are caught in the crossfire of contending factions with little incentive to reach the political accommodation that is necessary to begin rebuilding Iraqi society.

Like you, I know the face of war. Unlike you, I know war up close and personal. But I can’t imagine that killing from the air is any less traumatizing than close up. Different, but still not something a human being does naturally. Sometimes it may be necessary but I can’t imagine ever not regretting the knowledge that I killed another man. I served with the last Americans asked to die in Vietnam, to die for a mistake. I knew that going in but still could not and did not want to refuse my country. Knowing that I did it for no good reason deepens my regret. The US was getting out—troop levels and casualties dropped precipitously during the year I served—so there was little point to what I and my buddies did in the jungles and mountains of Long Kanh and Bin Thuy Provinces.

I think the problems posed by a timely American withdrawal from Iraq can be managed with good planning and with even some honor. The needless death and destruction in Iraq will, like Vietnam, remain a blot on America’s permanent record. The sooner we cauterize this self-inflicted wound, the better.

It is imperative congress provide our troops in lraq the resources required to carry out their vital mission. I have the utmost confidence in the ability of General David Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, and I feel strongly that his appointment coupled with this change in strategy, gives us the best chance for success. But it wilt be very difficult.

Congress should make it clear to America that it does not want to continue the occupation, that it wants this country to aggressively pursue diplomacy and regional cooperation to find a workable solution to the problems of a failed Iraq. Iraqis, who have constructed and reconstructed political entities in a turbulent region, should have the wisdom and goodwill to broker an agreement that protects all and removes the incentive to fight within a year. They were supposed to have done this long ago. American troops cannot do this for the Iraqis, nor can they be asked to make an open-ended commitment to a political process that does not exist except at the point of our weapons.

Bringing down the violence in Iraq will give Prime Minister Maliki and others the stability they need to pursue reconciliation, but it is ultimately up to the Iraqis themselves to make these tough decisions. It is absolutely imperative that they seize this opportunity. It may well be their last.

What do you mean, It may well be their last? Will you then withdraw? What about all the dire consequences that you just told me will attend an American withdrawal? What’s your policy then? How does it differ from what I propose now? Why inflict that much more damage on our troops and Iraq if you aren’t going to pursue the war further? You aren’t thinking that, are you? Please tell me you will not further escalate the American occupation of Iraq? Where will you get the forces?

Or better yet, please tell me and the nation if that’s what you have in mind. I think we all should know.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Be assured that I will continue to monitor the situation in Iraq very closely. The stakes in our mission there could not be higher.

Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senator
JM/ab

High stakes, I agree, for American troops and their families but for the nation not so much that we can’t pursue a regional solution, which I note, was recommended by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. War is the least effective form of intercourse among nations; it is nasty, brutal and far too unpredictable in any but the most extreme circumstances. More war when reasonable alternatives are available makes absolutely no sense to me. Nor is it right to ask of our troops. It is waste beyond measure.

Good for you to monitor the situation. I was disappointed to see that you missed voting on the Senate Iraq resolution.

I apologize for going on at such length. I'm trying to stop a war with words. Like bullets, sometimes you need a lot of 'em.