Friday, February 8, 2008

McCain and War

One of my commenters in response to my post regarding my attendance at a McCain rally said that "Very cute children. Hopefully you won't have to serve them up in a continued one sided war."

Well, I agree. While I supported the invasion of Iraq, I think it has been a screw up. Ron Paul was right about Iraq back in 1998. I have never been in the middle of a war (my sole military experience was some college ROTC) and I really hope my children never see it.

This hope to avoid more war is one reason I am supporting John McCain. I believe that he will never place troops in harm's way unless he believes it necessary and a last resort and he will give them the proper support they need (something I believe President Bush failed at).

I believe this for two reasons. First, due to his own experience in Vietnam. Second, for a reason Senator McCain never talks about -- one of his sons is a Marine lance corporal and has been serving in Iraq. Another of his sons is in the Naval Academy. So when President McCain is (I hope) inaugurated next January, he will have two sons in harm's way.

That I believe is the best insurance against sending troops in lightly, and making sure they have what they need to win.

And one last note -- JC, I have listened to all of the candidates (except Mike Gravel). I choose McCain.


Rodak said...

But, Anthony, if McCain is ready to fight what he considers to be an endless war, he will never need to put troops in harm's way--it's already been down for him. The spigot is open; all he needs to do is not shut it. Send your kids to Quaker school.

Rodak said...

Whoa! I make the weirdest typos in comment boxes! That "down" should be "done"--as in "done deal", which perpetual war will be, if McCain is Prez.

William R. Barker said...

I hope you're right, Anthony. And definitely, EXCELLENT point about McCain's two sons!

Unfortunately, I also share the fear Rob alludes to, which is of a philosophical "Caesar" McCain.

Damn straight I believe in peace through strength and don't object to the use of military force to meet U.S. national security and even simple national interest goals. That said, my benefit vs. cost analysis more closely resembles Buchanan's and Paul's as opposed to McCain's.

It seems to me that McCain's default position - his mindset - is that "national security" requires what amounts to an "American Empire." Not so much in terms of command and control, but in terms of endless and over-extended troop deployments including "policing" duties which are fundamentally combat in nature. (*SHRUG*)

Following McCain's "logic" on Iran (yes... Iran, leave Iraq aside for the moment) shouldn't he have been calling for us to use military force to stop North Korea and even Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons YEARS ago...??? (*SHRUG*)

Even putting that aside... back to cost/benefit... McCain seems to favor guns... butter... AND tax cuts with (even if he's elected) scant hope of getting any spending cuts through a Democratic Congress. In other words... casting aside philosophical arguments for or against the "American Empire" school of thought... I just don't see how we can afford the kind of expansionary commitments without end that McCain seems willing to take on... on our behalf... using our taxes... putting us and our children and grandchildren further into debt. (*SHRUG*)

Anyway... (*SHRUG*)


Anonymous said...

McCain has been biting his tongue about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. It's killing him to do it, but he needs the albeit-reluctant support of Bush's "conservative" followers. He's the only candidate left who will fight the trend of ever-expanding government. Thus, six months into his administration, he will face a monumental decision: raise taxes or abandon Iraq. I'm confident he'll choose the latter option. He can still have a big military; it just won't be getting shot at all day and used as extremist fodder to convince young Arabs to attack mosques and markets.