Another Contradictory Message to the Voters, Courtesy of John McCain
If we are meant to believe that John McCain’s motivations behind his support for the Iraq War are driven by his patriotic desire to see the Iraq develop into a democratic ally for the United States in an otherwise inhospitable area of the world, what are we to think about his suggestion in 2007 (in the midst of his reveling in the fact that he was the one that had originally advocated sending even more troops into Iraq) that we should cut ties with the fledgling democracy? In an extremely thorough GQ article addressing that very topic, they describe the statements McCain made to that effect. In actions following McCain’s perception that Iraq was "undercutting" America’s efforts in the nation (a view prompted by the fact that Iraq’s democratic, autonomous government had the audacity to disagree with our plans for progress and a way forward), the following occurred:
It suddenly seemed that the efforts of the surge might be for naught. And so, shortly after returning from Iraq, McCain and Graham visited President Bush at the White House. According to three individuals with knowledge of the July 11 conversation, the pair advised Bush to cut all ties with al-Maliki unless he showed immediate signs of engagement. Such a move on Bush’s part would be tantamount to encouraging a coup against Iraq’s first democratically elected prime minister, but McCain and Graham saw the situation as a desperate one. We’ve got a military strategy that’s working, they told the president. And it’s being undercut by an Iraqi government that’s dysfunctional.
So if he was simultaneously advocating sending more troops into Iraq and the severance of ties with that country’s democratically elected government, what does that say about his opinion of our operations there? It seems to me that if we are there as allies in the fight to rid Iraq of the extremists that are causing its internal turmoil, as McCain has colored the situation numerous times, then common sense dictates that we should have a vested interest in maintaining positive relations with the very government of the nation we are allied with in that effort. However, the only way that such contradicting stances can be reconciled is by arriving at the conclusion that McCain separates the two as not simultaneously necessary.
Advocating the increase of our military presence in a country while also advocating the severance of ties with said country’s elected government smacks of pure occupation. It says to me that McCain does not recognize the autonomy of Iraq’s government and their right to govern themselves - which he previously held as central to victory in the country:
Although US troops are necessary to help ensure security and act as catalyst for these monumental changes in Iraq, McCain doesn’t believe America should be acting on its own to stabilize the country. McCain has called for more involvement for the international community, and as president, he will continue to seek assistance from America’s European allies to help secure the Iraqi government, and he will work with the international community to make trade with Iraq more attractive.
So what sort of viewpoint on Iraq would jive with the desire to flood the country with even more troops while at he same time advocating cutting ties with its government? The only rational explanation for such motivations is one that says McCain has absolutely no regard or mutual respect for said government, but rather believes that our presence there is solely rooted in an agenda that seeks to advance the American sphere of influence, regardless of the opinions of the voters within that country. Whether or not this is rooted in the belief that we are acting in the best interests of Iraq, it remains an arrogant and frighteningly unilateralist viewpoint.
Again, this country - considering our diminished image around the world as a result of the last eight years rife with unilateral action and disregard for the opinions of the international community - can ill afford to have a President with such an arrogant and self-centered view of America’s authority and role on the global stage. Such a stance betrays a world view that is diametrically opposite from the standpoint that views our country as a participant in world affairs, but rather sees us as a global puppeteer that has the ability - and even the right - to dictate to the rest of the world the ways in which it should and should not act. Sound familiar?
