It's a pretty good summation of why I'll be voting for McCain over Obama. (Yes, I know, Obama's not the candidate YET - but the media is starting to ignore Hillary, which is a sign that no matter how you twist the numbers, she ain't gonna make up the delegate lead that Obama has.)
Talking Turkey at the TurkeyBlogAs pretty much every adult who's lived in the real world understands, there's times that you have to do things you don't like or want to do, because the alternative is worse. (Think about taking out the garbage, if anything more extreme is bothersome to you.)McCain experienced the horrors of war firsthand, but knows that we must do what we must do to preserve our great nation.
Obama thinks the horrors of war consist in having to wear a flag pin just because people who didn't edit the Harvard Review are dying overseas to keep your scrawny ass safe in the homeland. And it's too much for him to bear!
I've never been a fan of McCain, and I'm sure I'll have plenty to bitch about under a President McCain. But come November, I'll have no trouble picking my candidate.
Obama seems to think good intentions are enough to avoid conflict when it comes to international relations, and even if they aren't, it's all just a game that can be called at any time for any reason. Good intentions don't mean much when faced with people actively doing you harm. (A classic example is a mugger. Your good intentions and a desire to hold on to your own wallet mean nothing to him.) And the only way to end a war you're fighting is through either victory or defeat.
We lost in Viet Nam, in that the forces that were attempting to take over that country succeeded. Even though we had nominally 'won' - in that the South had established a boundary line and was able to keep the North out - but it was only our assistance that managed it. Cut the aid, as the Democrats did in '75 - and South Viet Nam fell.
We are being set up, I think, for a repeat of Viet Nam. We have made amazing progress in Iraq - even with Syria and Iran funneling ideological, financial and physical support to the forces that would gleefully drag it back to 700 AD.
And it'd come to nothing if we bugged out - did a 'peace with honor' routine, promise funding to the IA, and left. The IA might do quite well with our support - but after about a year, you know what'll happen. They'll get funding cut... and it won't be long afterwards that their throats will be cut. And we'll just sit on the sidelines and go "Oh, what a shame. Not OUR responsibility, though!"
At least. the Democrats will.
Obama believes diplomacy can change things. Now, diplomacy is a fine thing - but when faced with a decided bad actor/nation, often all diplomacy does is increase the body count by delaying conflict. There is much to be said for a 'game' where both sides are roughly equal in abilities - but in warfare that's a ticket to a real slaughter. War isn't a 'game' - and diplomats seem to ignore that.
McCain gets that. I don't think Obama does. McCain also seems to understand there's folks who cannot be negotiated with, who would happily destroy themselves in order to take out their perceived enemies. I don't think Obama gets that at all.
J.
Comments (1)
I have come to favor much of JEP's analysis on Vietnam: that Ronald Reagan understood that while the USSR was tied down rebuilding the NVA 3-4 times *completely* it damaged their economy and gave little chance for Soviet expansion elsewhere. Of course the US never went in to take out North Vietnam, either, which might have been dicey with China but a bit of skillful behind the scenes 'we know you don't like them much either' sort of thing could have kept them neutralized. And the USSR? I doubt it would go nuclear over North Vietnam and see it as just a lost proxy-war...
When the US finally did pull out the USSR went on to expand into Angola, Ogaden, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Afghanistan... which was really more than their economy could handle *and* deal with cruise missile advances, Pershing II and Star Wars by the US. Really that is a masterful view of geo-political economics, and far shrewder than any (even on the Right) usually attribute to Reagan.
This conflict sphere we are in is not an economic one, but global. It is dealing with those seeking to bring down the nation state system, the worst of which are the Islamic types, but also aided by such Leftist (more or less) as FARC, Shining Path, OSPAAL, etc. Iraq is important because, like in any war, it is at the center of the major ideological cross-roads of the worst of this global insurgent view. Hold and change the center and the rest starts to shift because of it. Afghanistan is a smaller sub-center (as is Indonesia and Philippines), and shifting some of those over to regularity of nation state views helps to further erode support for this global threat with many faces. The next places to watch for are Mexico, Central Asia, Western China and, of course, Europe. Getting Somalia *right* may help finally fission Islamic fundamentalism from African tribalism, but that is 3-4 generations in the doing.
To get the immediate places settled leads towards a long term winning path... get distracted in Darfur and wherever else the sociological and ideological connections *aren't* and we will lose... not just for ourselves. I'm afraid that none of the candidates have that sort of view... and we desperately need it if we are to continue on in this endeavor.
Posted by ajacksonian | May 19, 2008 9:25 AM
Posted on May 19, 2008 09:25