For some time, my opinion about John McCain was a simple warrior’s affirmation: “I’ll follow him into the barrel of a cannon”. Before the war, this was a commonly shared sentiment among the military. McCain was a war hero: a gutsy naval aviator who endured humiliation and torture for over five years as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton prison. We found McCain’s endurance and continuous service to our country decades later astounding and inspiring.

And it didn’t end there. McCain seemed to be a voice of reason. He was intolerant of the extremist Republican base, constantly blew the whistle on “pork” added to appropriations bills, and enthusiastically worked across the aisle on bipartisan bills. His candor and approachability were disarming. For all intents and purposes, he seemed like the everyday American that pollsters had become obsessed with creating in George Bush. Of the candidates in 2000, none would have handled 9/11 and the aftermath better than John McCain.

I still feel the same about McCain in many regards, but he’s moved away from the reliable straight shooter that once inspired me and become something more political- perhaps he sees it as a necessity to get elected. To get an idea of what the 2008 John McCain is about, I took a deep look at his essay for Foreign Affairs this month.

McCain’s essay has both the fresh, honest thinking we’ve come to know him for, as he discusses new diplomatic initiatives and speaks candidly of the way America needs to change, and depressingly, the same rhetorical staples that Bush and Guiliani won’t relent on: spreading democracy and sustaining American “global leadership”.


The Good:

Of the four essays written by candidates for Foreign Affairs that I’ve read so far, only McCain begins a real discussion about diplomacy and provides a detailed plan about countries with whom alliances ought to be strengthened or initiatives begun. It’s clear he has been thinking about diplomacy and is not just throwing the word around to soak up recognition points like many of his competitors. And he covers it all: the trans-Atlantic partnership, Asian democratic alliances, Latin America, and beyond. He debunks the idea that a strong EU is bad for the US and praises free-trade initiatives, dispelling bogus patriotic protectionist ideology.

On Darfur, McCain claims that the US was wrong not to act in Rwanda and wrong again to sit idly through the Sudanese crisis- he pledges action in any necessary form, claiming “The genocide in Darfur demands US leadership.”

McCain drops the boom on foreign oil and pledges energy independence from the Mideast, stating: “Continued oil purchases help sustain the conditions under which extremism breeds, and the burning of oil and other fossil fuels spurs global warming, a gathering danger to our planet.” This is the kind of assertiveness and rational thinking that we need in a president. McCain advocates hybrid technologies, alternative and nuclear energies, and emission caps. “Given the proper incentives, our innovators, scientist, entrepreneurs, and workers have the capability to lead the world in achieving energy security; given the stakes they must. It is time for America to lead the world in protecting the environment for future generations.”


The Odd:

Some of the things McCain advocates seem a bit misplaced. McCain: “We should go further [than relying on NATO] by linking democratic nations in one common organization: a worldwide League of Democracies…The organization could act when the UN fails- to relieve human suffering in the places such as Darfur…”

Although McCain says that his proposed League of Democracies wouldn’t “supplant the UN” it seems like a duplication of one failing, impotent organization (grossly undermined by the US) with another one. Isolating ourselves from other countries in a new members-only club further depletes the potential and efficacy of the UN. Let’s not forget that this administration appointed an ambassador to the UN who famously said, “There is no United Nations.”

McCain: “I will set up a new agency patterned after the erstwhile Office of Strategic Services. Like the original OSS, this would be a small, nimble, can-do organization. It would fight terrorist subversion around the world and in cyberspace. It could take risks…such as deploying infiltrating agents without diplomatic cover in terrorist states…”

More government? Another addition to the intelligence- gathering, intelligence-sharing, covert ops, apparatus? Don’t we already have a problem getting the CIA, DHS, FBI, DoD, etc. to properly share information? Again, this seems like a duplication in an area where we have serious disorganization, bureaucratic territorialism, and politicization. I don’t think America needs another CIA. We need a better CIA.


The Ugly:

McCain: “The next US president must continue America’s long-standing support for Israel, including by providing needed military equipment and technology and ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. The long-elusive quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians must remain a priority. But the goal must be genuine peace and so Hamas must be isolated.”

There are so many classic American delusions in this statement. The quest for peace needs to “remain” a priority? It hasn’t been a priority for this country since the Clinton administration. Flip the whole paragraph on its head, and see it through a different set of eyes: The US gives weapons, training, and continued ideological support to Israel, a country with a religious identity, criticizes other religiously-affiliated regimes, denounces Hamas’ democratic election and calls for its isolation in favor of the equally corrupt, puppet Fatah, then finally points the finger at the impoverished, psychologically broken Palestinians and tells them to get their act together if they want to play “fair”.

No candidate has strayed from this rhetoric, but someone needs to put their foot down already. The Israel-Palestine issue is as far from being black and white as possible, but American politicians, like McCain, make it out to be. Leadership requires finesse. Failing to see the depth on this issue or spend the political capital needed to get Israel and Palestine on the right track is resigning to perpetuate the status quo: failure, and a boon for extremism and terrorism.

Finally: Iraq. McCain: “Defeating radical Islamist extremists is the national security challenge of our time. Iraq is this war’s central front, according to our commander there, General David Petraeus, and according to our enemies, including Al Qaeda’s leadership.”

I don’t know what’s more upsetting, an American leader and veteran hiding behind one general’s assessment of the war he has been ordered to win, or one who takes his strategic cues from Al Qaeda videos. In regards to Petraeus, what this country’s civilian leaders and uneducated media have done to Gen. Petraeus is obscene. The way it’s supposed to work is that civilian leaders create policy, civilian leaders work with military leaders to craft strategies, and military leaders carry out the campaigns needed to achieve those strategies, thereby realizing policy. First our government railroaded the generals and now they are hiding behind them and their military code of political silence. Neither are examples of professional leadership.


The 2000 McCain would probably have been one of the best presidents this country ever had. The 2008 McCain is still showing some of that originality, creativity, candor, and of course, his ever present enthusiasm and dedication. But some of the maverick qualities that made him a great leader seem to be tempered by a decision to “play ball”, politically. If I were grading this essay, I’d give it a B+; it's A-quality work tarnished by conformist, anesthetizing, buzzword rhetoric.


Further Reading: John McCain In Foreign Affairs