John McCain — damn good war senator

I’ve never liked the idea of John McCain as a presidential candidate. He’s a little too iconoclastic for my tastes and, as with so many senators in the run for President, he has way too much baggage trailing behind him and too little administrative experience. Another reason I don’t want a McCain campaign is that, right now, I think that McCain is filling too important a role in the Senate to leave a vacuum behind him while he takes to the campaign trail. I say this because McCain, of all people, has turned into the Senate’s most articulate defender of the War in Iraq.

I first heard his most recent Iraq War speech on the radio, and have now tracked down a copy of that same speech. It’s a winner, it needs to be said to those good for nothing Senators slouching around the floor, and McCain is the only one saying it right now:

No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy chief, said that the United States is merely delaying our “inevitable” defeat in Iraq, and that “the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory.” He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans, and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al Qaeda.

General Petraeus has called al Qaeda “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.” What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al Qaeda in place? If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the “jihad wave” to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel – none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?

The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say that this approach will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the past three and a half years….

Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us what they believe to be the likely consequences of this course of action. Should their amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or less stable? That al Qaeda will find it easier to gather, plan, and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal will somehow make this less likely? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever likelier?

Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war.


4 Responses

  1. I agree with you on McCain. He was excellent during yesterday’s dog and pony show that the idiot Reid put on leading up to the Senate sleep-over; he was strong, a model of restrained passion, just enough fed up – and he absolutely took it to and spanked the half-witted Reid.

    Now, that’s not all that hard to do: Harry Reid is a genuinely not very bright guy, and as a Senate majority leader he’s an abject failure. He’s lost control of things, he directs nothing at this point; about all he can do is whine. Which he does in such a grating fashion that he doesn’t even give much entertainment value.

    But McCain, whom I do not much like, was excellent yesterday. I think his best use is right where he is. (As long as he stays away from campaign finance issues, and the border.)

  2. I supported McCain in 2000. He served then, and sometimes still does, the important function of “truth-teller.” We need more truth-tellers but it is a risky business.

  3. Ellie, I really don’t want to start a fight, but I just have to comment that McCain invariably tells McCain’s version of the truth. It doesn’t always agree with truth as I observe it.

    I am glad McCain is speaking up in support of victory in Iraq. It is very disappointing that he is notable for being the lone Republican Senator, joining one Democrat, oops Independent, in doing so. Or perhaps I should say he is the one Repbublican who gets media coverage for doing so.

    I believe that the best place for McCain after 2008 is–retired.

  4. Perhaps McCain should retire but that’s for him to decide if the voters of Arizona don’t make the decision for him. I think McCain has been solid on military and security issues and I’d like to see him stay in the Senate another term but my opinion means little; I don’t vote in Arizona. McCain was the first Republican I ever sent a campaign contribution, in 1999 (though I voted for Connie Mack for Florida Senator even when I was otherwise voting liberal because I thought Mack was consistent in his beliefs, fair-minded and had the best interests of the state in mind). I wouldn’t support McCain for POTUS because I disagree with him on key issues and mistrust his temperament. But I don’t feel good seeing his campaign implode, though this is and was inevitable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: