Fantastic Article on John McCain
It’s no secret that I am a supporter of Sen. Obama. I have donated to his campaign and I have unwavering faith that he will be a better president than Sen. John McCain.
It’s also no secret that I support a full withdrawal from Iraq. I once supported a rapid withdrawal, but on most days, I am convinced that a safe and orderly withdrawal would be sufficient.
I also think that the decision to withdraw should be made regardless of the “facts on the ground.” It comes down to a question of the mission. “Facts” are meaningless unless they’re evaluated in the light of interests and purposes. Yesterday’s fact that a suicide bombing killed twenty-two people, including five Iraqi police officers, in the Diyala province of Northern Iraq can be viewed in a myriad of lights, some arguing for further commitment and some arguing for withdrawal.
For Sen. John McCain, any fact must be interpreted in light of the mission as he sees it: “It is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people.”
For me, any fact must be interpreted in light of the fact that we are an occupying force.
This is not a question of whether we should or shouldn’t have gone in. It is not a question of whether we’re better off with 4,158 Americans dead than we would have been with Saddam Hussein alive. Nor is it a question of whether the death of ~90,000 innocent Iraqis was “worth it.”
Instead, it is a question of cost. This nation can no longer afford our empire.
The United States is $9,689,696,698,847.73 in debt. According to the treasury report for June 2008, $503 billion of that is owed to China; $170 billion to “Oil Exporters” (which includes Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.); and $65.3 billion to Russia. There are other holders of our debt, of course, but these three are in our national security cross-hairs, and we’re sending them a lot of money. After defense, Social Security, and Medicare, the fourth biggest outlay of federal funds in 2007 went to paying down the interest on our debt. We spent $237 billion on interest payments last year. INTEREST PAYMENTS! Not on healthcare, education, infrastructure, or security, but on INTEREST PAYMENTS!
Compound that massive national debt with the $341.4 million we spend each day in Iraq (and that doesn’t include the massive outlays of the soldiers’ regular salary, the potential future costs that will come from supporting wounded soldiers, nor for the interest costs that accrue based on the fact that the war is being financed while we have a budget deficit; it does not include the war in Afghanistan or any other enhanced security abroad; it is a simple reflection of the Federal budget, and as such it is a minimum cost, not a maximum). I can’t even begin to do the math, but the obvious trend shows that we cannot afford this war.
Now, with all of that said, I want to get to the point of this post: You should read this month’s cover story in the Atlantic, “The Wars of John McCain.” I know this was a long way to go to suggest an article to read, but I want to let you know where I stand before I tell you that this particular article could easily convince independent voters to cast their ballot for John McCain.
But I am not an independent voter. And maybe that’s why I found this particular paragraph to be more insightful than any of the others:
In my conversations with McCain…he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals. It’s not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore oil drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor—two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined—that he becomes truly unbending.
This explains the John McCain we’ve seen running for election this year, and I think it accurately predicts how President McCain would act in office.
Reading that paragraph, an independent voter could easily accept that kind of man as President.
But I can’t ignore the fact that we’ve already had eight years under a President whose sole passions were national defense and “victory,” and I don’t think we can afford four of the same.
This is not to parrot the Democratic talking point that says President Bush is the same as Sen. McCain. If Sen. McCain had been the Republican nominee and eventual victor in 2000, I do not think the country would have the same issues we have now. We would still be in Iraq (McCain was quick to link Iraq to Al Qaeda), but a Pres. McCain would have been more responsive to military realities than Pres. Bush and probably less prone to ideological blinders.
But while Sen. McCain may not be President Bush, I think he sees the world in an awfully similar light. We can’t afford another four years of the same unrealistic perspective that would have us honor a lie before we honor our debts.