If Flawed Presidential Rivals Are All It Takes, The Future Looks Bleak
By Matt Rowe, Executive Director, WinTheGWOT.org
In Jackie Calms’ article, “McCain Gears Up To Make His Case: War Stance Could Erode Support, But Campaign Sees Flawed Rivals,” (WSJ, April 25, 2007), Senator McCain states that “…the transcendent [election] issue is who is best equipped to fight this new challenge from radical Islamic extremism. I don't need any on-the-job training. I don't need time to develop. I'll hit the ground running." With nothing but the greatest respect for Senator McCain’s public and military service, we ask what exactly will he do differently from his “flawed” rivals?
As far as we have seen to date, Senator McCain simply wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq and continue to fight a war of firepower and attrition against an enemy who can outlast the US indefinitely.
Where are the persuasive calls for increasing our civil and political interaction in Iraq? By now everyone knows—or at least has had it drilled into their heads that this is a primarily political conflict. Certainly, large commitments of US troops are vital, but what else should we be doing to ensure a post war environment where the police are reasonably professional, the government is responsive—or at least does not condone ethnic violence, and the average Iraqi has some hope for a brighter future?
Senator McCain mentions signs of success due to the surge even though we don’t have as many troops as President Bush originally wanted to send. What are those signs? And if he is correct, isn’t that a sign that it is the strategy and not the numbers of troops that make the difference?
Let’s not forget that the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terror are not necessarily the same thing. We do not have armies of occupation combating terrorists in Yemen or Northeast Africa or the Philippines—the strategy and tactics required there are very different from trying to pacify the justifiably angry Iraqi population, ethnic tensions notwithstanding. Those countries pose a very real threat as sources for terrorists who will attack the US. Recall that the 911 hijackers were predominantly Saudi.
Senator McCain’s opinion that the terrorists in Iraq will follow us home is somewhat misleading—an Islamic based insurgency could not function in the US where there is no popular to support it. The imminent threat is already here and extremists are planning their next moves in the US very carefully. The more likely immediate outcome of a US withdrawal from Iraq is that the Jihadists will move to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Israel, Northeast Africa, or some other significantly Islamic area embroiled in what they believe is a Western attack on Islam.
Senator McCain should not be telling us how he is best suited to lead the US during a struggle against radical Islam, he should be telling us how he will do it. If he wants to reinvigorate his lagging presidential campaign he needs to provide some of these answers to the American people now.
As far as we have seen to date, Senator McCain simply wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq and continue to fight a war of firepower and attrition against an enemy who can outlast the US indefinitely.
Where are the persuasive calls for increasing our civil and political interaction in Iraq? By now everyone knows—or at least has had it drilled into their heads that this is a primarily political conflict. Certainly, large commitments of US troops are vital, but what else should we be doing to ensure a post war environment where the police are reasonably professional, the government is responsive—or at least does not condone ethnic violence, and the average Iraqi has some hope for a brighter future?
Senator McCain mentions signs of success due to the surge even though we don’t have as many troops as President Bush originally wanted to send. What are those signs? And if he is correct, isn’t that a sign that it is the strategy and not the numbers of troops that make the difference?
Let’s not forget that the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terror are not necessarily the same thing. We do not have armies of occupation combating terrorists in Yemen or Northeast Africa or the Philippines—the strategy and tactics required there are very different from trying to pacify the justifiably angry Iraqi population, ethnic tensions notwithstanding. Those countries pose a very real threat as sources for terrorists who will attack the US. Recall that the 911 hijackers were predominantly Saudi.
Senator McCain’s opinion that the terrorists in Iraq will follow us home is somewhat misleading—an Islamic based insurgency could not function in the US where there is no popular to support it. The imminent threat is already here and extremists are planning their next moves in the US very carefully. The more likely immediate outcome of a US withdrawal from Iraq is that the Jihadists will move to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Israel, Northeast Africa, or some other significantly Islamic area embroiled in what they believe is a Western attack on Islam.
Senator McCain should not be telling us how he is best suited to lead the US during a struggle against radical Islam, he should be telling us how he will do it. If he wants to reinvigorate his lagging presidential campaign he needs to provide some of these answers to the American people now.
1 Comments:
During the first Republican primary "debate" in California, Senator McCain defended his support for the war, saying "it's on the right track." Either Senator McCain knows something the rest of us do not, or he's letting blind faith in military power mislead him. Either way, it's a risky...maybe even foolish statement, given that so much can change in Iraq between now and the actual election. He'll likely regret he ever said it. Let's hope that I'm the one who is wrong on this one.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home