John McCain and U.S. foreign policy

Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has been highly rated in the vital areas of national defense and security for Americans, higher than either of his two Democratic rivals for the White House. Since our president serves as “commander in chief” of the armed forces, he or she wields incredible power in the world, so the foreign policy questions are crucial for America as well as the entire globe.
With deep respect for the Senator’s prior military service for this country, his inspiring survival story, we must consider that neither flying combat aircraft over Hanoi nor suffering five years’ captivity in an enemy prison necessarily make the sufferer wise on defense. The nuclear-powered carrier USS Reagan’s recent port call in Santa Barbara reminds us that the young Navy pilot John McCain took off from such a lethal offensive weapon before he was shot down. Like his Admiral father, Sen. McCain is very accustomed to projecting US power far overseas.
Despite his military record, Sen. McCain’s published foreign policy views reflect a continuation of our current President’s inept global strategy. McCain simply continues George Bush’s rash belligerence abroad. Consummate true believer, he’ll stay there as long as it takes to “win.”
McCain feels we have failed in Iraq ONLY because we didn’t go all out in the first place when we invaded Iraq. But the good Senator forgets “shock and awe” in March and April 2003, and the later battle of Fallouja — this was our battle of Algiers. He trumpets his early support of Bush’s “surge” believing these reinforcements have turned the tide there. Recent reports indicate this is not the case, and the surge has also been reduced by British and Australian pull-outs. Now we’re stuck in the fifth year of an unsavory, bloody occupation.
Sen. McCain won’t consider the competing geo-political idea that the next president could choose NOT to go harder in Iraq — we could pull out of the Mesopotamian mud by the end of 2009. McCain falls into more of the deadly Cheney-Bush illogical thinking when he stresses how the sacrifices of our 4000 war dead mean we have to stay. We can expect waves of surges for the next hundred years from the Arizona Senator.
Withdrawal from Iraq by late ’09 dishonors only the executive branch incompetents who thoughtlessly hurled our men there; while a judicious withdrawal will restore some of our moral stature around the world and give our armies time to heal. Pulling out of Iraq does NOT require leaving the entire Middle East nor does it have to feel like a defeat. Often we have two stupendous nuclear carriers cruising off the Strait of Hormuz guarding oil lanes (intimidating Iran?), or even three, and friendly Israel is a staunch military ally.
What does “win in Iraq” really mean to the Cheney-Bush-McCain troika and their followers? The neo-cons chose to disband Saddam Hussein’s army, but then banned these Sunni Baathists from participation in the political process of the “new” Iraqi government. John McCain did not protest this. After finally getting rid of Saddam Hussein, Bush suddenly said America next had to “install democracy” in Iraq. John McCain did not protest this policy.
Today we can ask, ‘how do you force a democratic government down the throats of traditionally competitive Arab desert tribes?’ Today, the new democratically-elected Iraqi leaders openly thumb their noses at us by lavishly welcoming the crazy Iranian President into Baghdad, while the past few days witness mortar attacks on our Green Zone redoubt. Can Sen. McCain see that our true contest is in the global war on terror (GWOT), not these posturing puppets on the Euphrates? Our enemy is NOT a country. Our enemy uses the internet and cell phones and text messages to communicate, and he hides openly among us all across the globe. McCain’s sadly simplistic to contend that “winning” in Iraq equates to victory in the GWOT against the West.
To continue trying to “win” in Iraq sustains an incredible strain on the US economy, already reeling for other reasons. This three trillion dollar war has to stop not only because of the unbearable cost of American and Iraqi lives, but also because we are borrowing the war-funding from our own children. Twelve billion dollars a month is too much. The current Iraqi occupation is unsupportable financially and inexcusable morally.
In every US war we’ve ever had, we have had to raise taxes in order to pay for it. This is logical, and usually the government has also borrowed vast sums of money from the banks and the people. The Cheney-Bush crowd, however, not only CUT TAXES for the very wealthy, those most able to pay, but they also failed to ask sacrifices from the American people. We gave up tax revenues for the government while waging an unbelievably expensive war, yet asked for no sacrifices from the people! If they really believed this attack on one country would win the GWOT they’d demand parallel sacrifices from “the people” — how about gasoline rationing like W.W. II?
Sen. McCain would prolong our unsuccessful Iraqi occupation, and send more of our increasingly exhausted army there to fight. He’s such the Bush foreign policy clone that he’s incapable of cognizing the COSTS of our occupation debâcle. He also seems to have no ideas about how to pay for the NEXT three trillion dollars of expenses, and he doesn’t dare demand sacrifice from the people to help the war. Sen. McCain has also spoken recklessly about Iranian impudence and nuclear intransigence, and recently kept saying “Iran” when context demanded “Iraq.” These are not senior moments, and many think a President McCain would countenance invasion of Iran.
With no new foreign policy ideas on how to wage the GWOT, or pull-out plans for Iraq, Senator McCain should remain in the U.S. Senate dispensing his wisdom as an elder statesman. America will be much stronger if we elect a leader who will extract our men from Iraq as expeditiously as possible, certainly by December 2009 as Barack Obama has promised.

Open Letter to US Rep. Lois Capps (D Calif):

Considering your status as a “super delegate” to the Democratic Nominating Convention, and given your strong stand against our continued occupation of Iraq, I hope you will speak out stridently against the McCain-Bush-Petraeus strategy to keep the “surge” reinforcements in Iraq longer.
Maintaining current troop levels, i.e. NOT bringing the 30,000+ surge soldiers back as promised, damages American interests and uses up our soldiers. The US armed forces, especially the infantry and the armored battalions, need to regroup and heal themselves. We have to replace thousands of Humvees and many Apache gunships, etc. And asking our young warriors to go for third tours while the leadership has no overall reasonable goals in Iraq — this is wrong. This is criminally inept. The intolerable costs of this misguided mistake, almost $12 billion a month, bankrupt the nation. Our national economy may be our strongest defense.
We need to get out of Iraq and much of the Middle East (not Afghanistan), so I urge you, Mrs. Capps, to haggle with both the Obama and the Clinton campaigns to push them into harder anti-war stances. The stated goal of mostly withdrawn by Dec. 2009 is too far off — how about pledges to have 90% of American forces out of Iraq by August 2009, with the last 10% out by year’s end? Both Democratic candidates need to stop hedging about leaving “a few troops” within Iraq; please use your super delegate status to press our candidates to publicly call for withdrawal from Iraq NOW!

John McCain and U.S. Foreign Policy

Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has been highly rated in the vital areas of national defense and security for Americans, higher than either of his two Democratic rivals for the White House. Since our president serves as “commander in chief” of the armed forces, he or she wields incredible power in the world, so the foreign policy questions are crucial for America as well as the entire globe.
With deep respect for the Senator’s prior military service for this country, his inspiring survival story, we must consider that neither flying combat aircraft over Hanoi nor suffering five years’ captivity in an enemy prison necessarily make the sufferer wise on defense.
Despite his military record, Sen. McCain’s published foreign policy views reflect a continuation of our current President’s inept global strategy. McCain simply continues George Bush’s rash belligerence abroad. Consummate true believer, he’ll stay there as long as it takes to “win.”
McCain feels we have failed in Iraq ONLY because we didn’t go all out in the first place when we invaded Iraq. But the good Senator forgets “shock and awe” in March and April 2003, and the later battle of Fallouja — this was our battle of Algiers. He trumpets his early support of Bush’s “surge” believing these reinforcements have turned the tide there. Recent reports indicate this is not the case, and the surge has also been reduced by British and Australian pull-outs. Now we’re stuck in the fifth year of an unsavory, bloody occupation.
Sen. McCain won’t consider the competing geo-political idea that the next president could choose NOT to go harder in Iraq — we could pull out of the Mesopotamian mud by the end of 2009. McCain falls into more of the deadly Cheney-Bush illogical thinking when he stresses how the sacrifices of our 4000 war dead mean we have to stay. We can expect waves of surges for the next hundred years from the Arizona Senator.
Withdrawal from Iraq by late ’09 dishonors only the executive branch incompetents who thoughtlessly hurled our men there; while a judicious withdrawal will restore some of our moral stature around the world and give our armies time to heal. Pulling out of Iraq does NOT require leaving the entire Middle East nor does it have to feel like a defeat. Often we have two stupendous nuclear carriers cruising off the Strait of Hormuz guarding oil lanes (intimidating Iran?), or even three, and friendly Israel is a staunch military ally.
What does “win in Iraq” really mean to the Cheney-Bush-McCain troika and their followers? The neo-cons chose to disband Saddam Hussein’s army, but then banned these Sunni Baathists from participation in the political process of the “new” Iraqi government. John McCain did not protest this. After finally getting rid of Saddam Hussein, Bush suddenly said America next had to “install democracy” in Iraq. John McCain did not protest this policy.
Today we can ask, ‘how do you force a democratic government down the throats of traditionally competitive Arab desert tribes?’ Today, the new democratically-elected Iraqi leaders openly thumb their noses at us by lavishly welcoming the crazy Iranian President into Baghdad, while the past few days witness mortar attacks on our Green Zone redoubt. Can Sen. McCain see that our true contest is in the global war on terror (GWOT), not these posturing puppets on the Euphrates? Our enemy is NOT a country. Our enemy uses the internet and cell phones and text messages to communicate, and he hides openly among us all across the globe. McCain’s sadly simplistic to contend that “winning” in Iraq equates to victory in the GWOT against the West.
To continue trying to “win” in Iraq sustains an incredible strain on the US economy, already reeling for other reasons. This Three Trillion Dollar War has to stop not only because of the unbearable cost of American and Iraqi lives, but also because we are borrowing the war-funding from our own children. Twelve billion dollars a month is too much. The current Iraqi occupation is unsupportable financially and inexcusable morally.
In every US war we’ve ever had, we have had to raise taxes in order to pay for it. This is logical, and usually the government has also borrowed vast sums of money from the banks and the people. The Cheney-Bush crowd, however, not only CUT TAXES for the very wealthy, those most able to pay, but they also failed to ask sacrifices from the American people. We gave up tax revenues for the government while waging an unbelievably expensive war, yet asked for no sacrifices from the people! If they really believed this attack on one country would win the GWOT they’d demand parallel sacrifices from “the people” — how about gasoline rationing like W.W. II?
Sen. McCain would prolong our unsuccessful Iraqi occupation, and send more of our increasingly exhausted army there to fight. He’s such the Bush foreign policy clone that he’s incapable of cognizing the costs of our occupation debâcle. He also seems to have no ideas about how to pay for the next three trillion dollars of expenses, and he doesn’t dare demand sacrifice from the people to help the war. Sen. McCain has also spoken recklessly about Iranian impudence and nuclear intransigence, and recently kept saying “Iran” when context demanded “Iraq.” These are not senior moments, and many think a President McCain would countenance invasion of Iran.
With no new foreign policy ideas on how to wage the GWOT,or pull-out plans for Iraq, Senator McCain should remain in the U.S. Senate dispensing his wisdom as an elder statesman. America will be much stronger if we elect a leader who will extract our men from Iraq as expeditiously as possible, certainly by December 2009.

A Celebration of Threats: comparison of carrier USS Reagan's 2008 Santa Barbara Visit with that of the 1908 Great White Fleet

Recent public commentary praising the Navy League for welcoming the nuclear-powered carrier REAGAN to Santa Barbara last month misses the point by failing to understand our global position. Blinded by pure nationalism, these "patriots" wanted us to celebrate the sailors from this enormous warship that also carries nuclear bombs and missiles along with 80 combat aircraft. However, most of the paeans to honor brave sailors immediately morphed into the pageantry and blazing power of the USS Reagan itself. The new science-technology religion in our military democracy requires orgasmic exuberance whenever we behold our best weapons. What does such fervent celebration of our mobile naval nuclear weapon imply? Did the sailors also visit the crosses at Arlington West?

For global geo-political understanding, let's look at the context one hundred years ago when President Theodore Roosevelt ordered his new fleet of battleships to steam around the world, setting off in 1907. TR had recently won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping settle the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, but he was still worried about Japanese military moves in the Far East. Having just seen construction of 16 state-of-the-art new battleships, Roosevelt realized it was basically an Atlantic Ocean fleet, and that we were weak in the Pacific. He had the vessels deliberately painted an un-warlike white, and they set off in December of 1907 around South America. It was a technical feat to get the 16 ships safely through the Strait of Magellan and up to California on a showy world circumnavigation. TR's global goal was to forestall Japanese aggression by a peaceful show of force in the Far East, including a provocative fleet visit to Yokohama. Always contradictory, TR did love the pageantry of American power abroad but his chief goal was to prevent war. Indeed, we avoided hostilities with Japan until December 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor).

The thunderous cheers for the 1908 Great White Fleet's visit to southern California reflected a jubilant nation at peace. By contrast, the USS REAGAN's 2008 port call in Santa Barbara reflects a worried and aggressive America. The behemoth boasts incredible firepower, dwarfing that of all the 1908 battleships combined, and will eventually return to the Persian Gulf region again to support our assault on Iraq. The never-ending-war has become a never-ending-story for our children.

Yes, it was certainly important to support the visiting sailors during their port call here—they are the young we've chosen to sacrifice in order to continue our occupation—but we could have worn black and kept a sober mien mixed with sorrow. A global outlook reveals that America is the aggressor in the Middle East, and now we're enmeshed in a bloody occupation. Writers who extol the REAGAN's unbelievable firepower and go through these techno-enthusiasm orgies usually add the noun "defend." Since Iraq did not attack the USA, how can offensive maneuvers by our gargantuan carriers be in defense of America? Jingoistic nationalism celebrates offensive weapons and blitzkrieg air strikes.

We currently have over 150,000 soldiers plus an unknown number of mercenaries occupying Iraq, with many thousands more in Afghanistan (as well as NATO forces), and mighty naval forces cruising off the Strait of Hormuz. Why shouldn't Iran be terrified? Like wealthy and powerful Athens in her Classical Age, we're off on belligerent military adventures around the globe, and the rest of the world see the REAGAN as an offensive, threatening weapon. Why can't US military forces be applied to globally rather than to occupy? How could true patriots celebrate the recent visit like the 1908 Californians when they know where the REAGAN goes and what it will do "for us" in the Persian Gulf?

Let Islam be Islam and America be America!

Allowing Islam to be Islam is an important new principle that can help change U.S. foreign policy and reduce warfare in the 21st century. Since I’ve been teaching about Islam and other world religions to sixth graders since 2001, this focus on Moslem beliefs and practices is a familiar subject. Every fall I begin the year studying ISLAM partly because American kids have great curiosity about it and also because of its great complexity and depth.
If the United States wants to avoid that ‘clash of civilizations’ Samuel Huntington warned us about — and which Bush and Bin Laden are bringing closer — we have to figure out “what IS Islam?” This question is more vital than “why do they hate us” and answering it will help us deal peacefully with Moslems globally. The Prophet Muhammed, may his name be blessed, received some explicit instructions from Jibril (Gabriel) — including praying 5x per day, making the hajj to Mecca, and fasting during Ramadan month. Many individual Moslems will actually obey these and other prescriptions from the Islamic pillars of practice. The US consistently enrages some Moslems when our foreign policy prevents them from carrying out these sacred actions prescribed in the holy Qur'an. Islam is by far the youngest of the three “western” Abrahamic religions that actually began in the Near East. Still without a “Reformation,” many Moslems are determinedly serious about carrying out the prescriptions of the Prophet, and this intensity is difficult for non-Moslems to appreciate.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report stated that “the American homeland is the planet,” meaning an attack on American interests overseas is the same as a terrorist assault in North America [p. 362]. But if we have to consistently intervene to protect our “foreign” homeland — call it empire! — using military force, we encounter significant opposition by uprooting Moslem daily life. Thrusting troops into Panama, or stationing divisions in Germany or South Korea, works out globally, but having troops anywhere in Saudi Arabia near the Ka’aba becomes a problem. Our invasion of Iraq and ongoing bloody occupation there disrupts required Moslem daily practices. What about the mosques we’ve accidentally damaged, the civic destruction in the two battles for Fallouja, and the tens of thousands of Moslem women and children killed as collateral damage? We need to review our foreign policy principles, cease imagining the whole planet as part of our “homeland,” and admit to limits on our enormous power.
Andrew Bacevich, author of the acclaimed The New American Militarism (Oxford, 2005), recently posited 5 principles to guide American actions abroad; one of them is to husband your economic and military resources. Steering clear of reckless invasions or selective airstrikes (Cheney’s plotted cruise missiles vs. Iran) does not mean passive isolationism. As von Clausewitz famously stated, the THREAT of using force is usually more influential than outright attack. When we do attack this squanders our advantages, reveals the shocking limits of power, and damages the American planetary empire’s longevity.
Bacevich also advocates our need to reinvent that “containment” strategy which was so successful against the USSR. Thus we see the necessity of letting Islam simply be Islam, a 1300 year old “younger” Abrahamic religion with all the monotheistic aspects that go with that tradition. A new strategy of CONTAINING Islam by forgoing military intervention allows Moslem moderates time to calm the stresses of western modernity on their belief system. It gives the 1.4 billion Moslems the security to know they can carry out their sacred activities without an external threat, and WE can husband our resources.
Just as my students find Islam quite mysterious and complex, so do many Mohammedans find America enigmatic, violent, and imperialistic. As we struggle to understand them, let’s give them time to develop and to co-habit with a restrained American influence on our shared planet.

Fighting the Real Fight

Scholar Andrew Bacevich’s fine piece “Fighting the real fight” matters [LA Times, Nov. 6]! He’s absolutely correct — the USA has to move forward with a new foreign policy based on principles AND on a global “containment” strategy. George Kennan’s containment strategy won the Cold War for us, so perhaps we need to look at isolating, outwitting, and out-creating what Bacevich terms “Islamic radicalism.”
One of Bacevich’s five new international principles begins with this idea: “Let Islam Be Islam” We have to try to do this, and accept that the peoples of the earth aren’t waiting with bated breath for Americans to “fix” their problems. It isn’t the western civilized white man’s burden to cram democracy or modernity into the Middle East. Why should we ever imagine we can understand, much less change, the minds and hearts of 1.4 billion faithful Moslems??
Let us husband our resources and redeploy our men out of Iraq!

Open Letter to my Santa Barbara Representative to Congress, Lois Capps (D)

“MRS CAPPS, WHY WON’T YOU SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AGAINST BUSH AND CHENEY?”
AN OPEN LETTER TO U.S. Rep. Lois CAPPS, Sept. 26, 2007 —
Dear Mrs. Capps,
Recently I’ve been getting numerous emails from you and your office. One of them offered an online survey to rate how you and this Democratic 110th Congress are doing. Like many of your constituents, I dare to predict, I rated this Congress’s performance as “poor.” And today the national approval rating for this Congress hovers around a very low 22%.
Mrs. Capps, I’ve voted for you in every Congressional election. I’ve supported your generally effective representation in the House, and you have been a “good” representative for us living in Santa Barbara. However, like Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, you seem to be unaware that this President ignores you, and actually scorns your third branch of the U.S. government, the U.S. Congress. Only direct and constitutional action by Congress will control our incompetent and belligerent leaders. Even the initiation of the simple process of impeachment proceedings against Mr. Bush and V.P. Cheney will hamper these neo-imperialists from lashing out at some other country. Iran of course immediately comes to mind.
In response to my email, you have declined to cosponsor a House bill that would begin a path to impeachment proceedings. In a recent email to me you wrote, “I believe Speaker Pelosi is acting in what she believes is the best long term interests of our country… I have decided to respect the Speaker's decision on this issue and not cosponsor any impeachment legislation at this time.”
I believe you read polls which indicate that more and more Americans have gotten resigned to the war issue, and that they’re waiting for the Nov. 2008 elections to deliver us a new president. But you and the Democratic majority have been elected to pull our army out of Iraq now, and to constrain Mr. Bush for the rest of his 16 months in office. You also wrote me how you “completely share that frustration” most of us have with our continuing bloody occupation of Iraq. Yet you remain opposed to beginning the impeachment process, which can only start in your House of Representatives, according to the U.S. Constitution.
As our representative, many Santa Barbarans and I look to you for moral as well as political leadership. The people want their army out of Iraq, and our military leaders are telling us we’re wearing out the armed forces. It’s cruel to ask our brave soldiers to make THREE deployments to Iraq, and extend the third tour to 15 months!
I am dismayed that you and most of the Democrats, including most of the contenders for the presidential nomination, are deceiving the American people with an anti-war sham. You, and the new Democratic majority in the 110th Congress, were clearly elected to get us out of our odious occupation of Iraq.
Like most Americans, I don’t care about the “200 hearings” you Democrats have held about the “quagmire” of Iraq. As the co-equal third branch of government the Constitution assigns you the task to “balance” the power of the executive branch. Your only effective tool to constrain this President and his bellicose Vice President is the wholly legal and measured move to begin impeaching him in the House now. Mrs. Capps, I beg you to reconsider your decision NOT to cosponsor impeachment proceedings. American constitutional democracy requires a separation and balance of powers, but our current executive branch is wildly out of control, and may well strike militarily at Iran without Congressional approval. Only Congress is given the power to declare war on another country (U.S. Constitution, Article 1).
Without the check of impeachment, the useless killings will go on uncontested, and our soldiers will continue to die for political considerations at home. This is a failure of our constitutional democracy. I hope you will reconsider your refusal to act directly against the illegal war policies of this imperial executive branch by supporting the impeachment process.