Loose Cannon

The recent Georgia crisis brought on some heavy breathing by McCain that seems to be benefiting him by highlighting his foreign policy "experience". But that experience is really one of mouth-breathing belligerence and fear-mongering regarding every "crisis" that comes along. This is not a cool head that should have his finger on the U. S. military buttons. He has one solution, it seems, for everything -- send in the troops or bomb the hell out of "them". This is "judgment"?

On Thursday of last week, Republican presidential nominee John McCain said that Russia's invasion of Georgia was "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." This is most certainly not true, at least according to the last two decades' worth of foreign policy assessments from one John McCain.

In December 1990, two months after Germany reunified and four months after Saddam Hussein did unto Kuwait far worse than what Vladimir Putin has so far done unto Georgia, the Arizona senator asserted that "the peace and security of the world for future generations [demand] that the world community act decisively to end the Gulf Crisis now." Pretty serious stuff.

In January 1994, he described North Korea's nuclear weapons program as "the most dangerous and immediate expression" of "the greatest challenge to U.S. security and world stability today," and warned that "there can be no serious doubt that our vital national interests are imperiled." Serious!

In an April 1999 speech that everyone considering voting for McCain should go read now, the rogue-state rollbacker said that "America's most important values—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—are under vicious assault by the Milosevic regime," requiring "an immediate and manifold increase in the violence against Serbia proper and Serbian forces in Kosovo," including mobilization of "infantry and armored divisions for a possible ground war." Très sérieux!

And of course, during the current campaign, he has repeatedly reminded voters that he's running for president to confront "the transcendent issue of our time: the battle and struggle against radical Islamic extremism." Which, he argued at a Republican debate in June 2007, "is a force of evil that is within our shores.... My friends, this is a transcendent struggle between good and evil. Everything we stand for and believe in is at stake here." If that isn't a "probably serious crisis internationally," then the phrase truly has no meaning.

UPDATE:

This editorial from the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes the same points.

In the Republican primaries of 2000, the hard-line conservative foreign policy “experts” who later pushed hardest for an invasion of Iraq did not support George W. Bush. Their candidate was McCain, because they believed he would be most likely to conduct the sort of militarily interventionist policy they advocated.

More recently, McCain’s aggressive instincts have been apparent in his policy toward Iran. There too he has been more eager than most —- including many in his own party —- to talk of military solutions to a problem that to many experts defies a military approach.

The question for the American voter, of course, is whether a candidate of such instincts is well-suited for the White House in times such as these. At rare moments in history, a military response is essential and required, as it was in World War II, and as it was in Afghanistan in the wake of Sept. 11.

But more often, the choices offered by history are more complex, requiring judgment and wisdom. Choosing confrontation and war too quickly when other options are available can prove disastrous, as the example of Iraq should have taught us.

McCain’s instinct, demonstrated time and again and most recently now in Georgia, is to cast America as a global policeman. In the next few months, American voters have to ask themselves whether they share that vision and instinct.