Article

2008-03-26 Home Front: Politix

McCain Channels the NYT, CFR, John Kerry

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Verlaine 2008-03-26 13:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Wrong on all counts. Talking points like this have zero traction with any voters that McCain has any chance to get. An intelligent, factually sound, non-delusional set of talking points, on the other hand, would both attract realists and informed folks from the center on to the right, and assure them that there is more to McCain than resolve on Iraq mixed with lots of pernicious silliness on other foreign policy matters (and an even more whiplash-inducing mix on domestic issues).

And then there's the small matter of national interest. Endorsing, adopting - anything short of eviscerating and disposing of - the pernicious myths on display here materially damage the country and the cause of civilization. The public, here and elsewhere, is largely misinformed and misguided, but in a way that can be repaired. THIS c***pola exacerbates the problem. There's a struggle going on not just here but in "allied" countries - I worked with several allied military officers in the sandbox, and they were all very focused on stuff like this, because the lack of political will in their countries was bound up with these delusions. McCain mouthing this nonsense - and this will be what the world hears from him on these matters - undercuts the realists in real allied countries.

But maybe I ought to reconsider. Years and years of silence and bizarre dereliction by the Bush admin. in educating, building a base of public support and understanding, correcting the record, and upholding the honor of the US and its servicemembers have only made things much harder - yet it hasn't actually caused us to lose a war (yet).

"Stroking it to set it aside" is a foolish move that reflects a lack of judgement on both the substance and the politics of the matter. It also does not take into account the Beltway mediocrity that permeates McCain and his advisors - mostly followers, not leaders, and certainly not strategists. This whole thing is a wrenching reminder, especially to those who have been exposed directly to McCain over the years (long before anyone mentioned him as a prez candidate), of just how disastrous this presidential cycle already is, even before the general.

Posted by Verlaine 2008-03-26 16:29|| 2008-03-26 16:29|| Front Page Top

#2 Oy. Look, Obama is saying we need to talk to our enemies - to Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Ahmahdinajed,Assad and Kim. McCain is saying we need to talk to our allies, to Brown and Sarkozy and Merkel and Harper. If you guys think there wasnt tension between the US and even the friendlier of our allies during the Bush admin,esp when Rummy was still in office, you havent been paying attention. and if you think we dont need no stinking allies, well youre far more removed from reality than even the Obamaniks.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-03-26 16:30|| 2008-03-26 16:30|| Front Page Top

#3 " instead of tearing them up by declaring that all outlaw belligerents qualify for their privileges and protections, doesn't qualify as defending the rules of civilized society?"

Yes, if we stop torturing outlaw belligerents, it will help us in our relations with allies and neutrals, and will likely gain us more than we get by torturing them. Whats so complicated about that? and yeah, it DOES appeal to the center, who dont like torture, and who dont think all the Euros are eevil socialist "tranzis" and arent going to be convinced by folks spouting hatred and playing loose with the facts.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-03-26 16:34|| 2008-03-26 16:34|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm sorry... but who was tortured? When? By what means?

Posted by Shaiper Squank3439 2008-03-26 16:51|| 2008-03-26 16:51|| Front Page Top

#5 McCain was doing a good job of gaining my vote as long as he kept his mouth shut.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-03-26 16:52|| 2008-03-26 16:52|| Front Page Top

#6 if no one was tortured, why do so many folks here have their panties in a twist about McCains legislation?

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-03-26 16:56|| 2008-03-26 16:56|| Front Page Top

#7 The answer to that, liberalhawk, is I think that people see it as one more in a dangerous series of pre-emptive surrenders against barbarians who have no scruples in torturing and killing innocents themselves.

Posted by lotp 2008-03-26 18:08|| 2008-03-26 18:08|| Front Page Top

#8 I don't think we should torture (which we don't, but what the hell) non-uniformed combatants captured on the battlefield.

We should shoot them on the spot - as ~~required~~ allowed by the Geneva Conventions.

How could anyone complain?

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2008-03-26 18:12|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2008-03-26 18:12|| Front Page Top

#9 I'll bite: I have absolutely no problem with executing on the spot, or extracting needed info by whatever means necessary in the interest of our national security, or safety of our troops. These dirtbags are NOT entitled to a lawyer, criminal court, 3 squares a day or continued breathing.

Fling away, oh superior-morals one

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-26 18:13|| 2008-03-26 18:13|| Front Page Top

#10 by the way, before you do, this will be the 5,932nd thread we've argued that issue without convincing anyone that they should change their opinion, nor does it raise my esteem for your high-horse of rectitude. I'd call it naive at best.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-26 18:15|| 2008-03-26 18:15|| Front Page Top

#11 See also WAFF.com > MCCAIN VIDEO - NATO FROM THE BALTIC TO THE BLACK SEAS???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-03-26 20:50|| 2008-03-26 20:50|| Front Page Top

#12 I'll see your "Oy" and add a "yikes," LH.

Apologies in advance, but you sound like a Washington Post reporter - here. McCain wants to talk to our allies. Uh - you mean, we DON'T currently talk to our allies? Surely you don't mean that - but then what could your point possibly be? We consult with allies and near-allies and neutrals and even some adversaries all the time. Heck, in Iraq our allies are hard not to talk to, seeing as they usually hold command positions such as deputy CG of MNF-I, ops chief of MNF-I, and the like. And I hear tell that in Afghanistan things are even more ally-ish - we even call it a NATO operation, while not laughing.

And we're talking here about military operations, contributions thereto - in law enforcement and intel, there of course are disputes, but the US and its true allies (and some fairly dicey non-allies) work very closely, and have before but especially since 9/11. But that only reinforces MY point - we work with and talk with our true allies constantly, and its ridiculous to endorse the myth that they lack a voice, or that we get always our way, or that WE are the ones who should be re-considering our ways.

McCain parroted one of the most baseless and annoying myths regarding consulting allies and "go-it-alone". It's nonsense, and his inclusion of that crap in his speech is indefensible.

So tension between Rummy's DOD and "allies" is prima facie evidence of .... what, exactly? We'd have to examine each case in detail to see the merits, right? But why is the existence of tensions in even truly allied relationships an issue, per se? I seem to recall a few small problems in the US-British relationship during the The Big One, yet that all seemed to turn out all right.

But this gets to the heart of the problem: the assumption that the existence of disagreements ipso facto means the US is doing or saying something wrong. What idiocy - especially in the current situation. The US was dead right on the ABM Treaty, dead right on Kyoto, and so on. Not even close calls. As I said in my original comment - where are the plausible, concrete alternatives to US policies? Oh - and we'll even make special considerations here, since in most cases the US is the one enduring most of the risk and almost ALL of the costs, regardless of the course chosen.

As for "not needing no stinking allies", you've got it precisely backwards. Those like me who have had enough of this sophomoric Beltway and MSM crap - and are appalled to see McCain echoing it - are fervently desirous of allies - real allies. And we are in touch with reality, so we know that the "allied" contribution to our efforts, with a very few exceptions, is pathetic (speaking here again of military ops and the open geopolitical commitments they require).

And it gets worse. The few allies with any ability to even contribute military power are seeing a decline in their already modest capacities. The media search desperately and in vain for any widespread morale problems in the very busy US military - but they wouldn't have to do much to find deep discontent, even despair, in allied services such as the British. Or frustration and humiliation in the services of many European allies, where the guys want to pull their weight, and are tortured by their homelands' departure from internationally responsible policies. I saw these myself, over and over and over, directly and in person in Iraq.

This is the other disastrously incompetent aspect of McCain's comments, and the positions it implies. The next president should be challenging the allies to regain their dignity and integrity and do something - not indulge their arrogant and outrageous carping from the sidelines. The editorial staff at Le Monde may warm to some of the silliness McCain tosses their way, but the serious people in European militaries would be much more heartened by an American president who challenged their polities and leaderships to shoulder their responsibilities.

Oh, and BTW, the preposterously inane stuff that comes from Obama and his advisors, or the slightly less silly stuff from Hillary, aren't the point. Neither of them will be president, and even if they were to be president, they wouldn't do 99% of what they say.

In your second comment, LH, you veer off into something I didn't address - but I could well be to blame as I employed a long and clumsy construction in saying what I said. My comment about the Geneva Conventions was that the US is upholding them, and those who demand their application to all humanoid bipeds - regardless of behavior - are the ones shredding them. The Conventions are an extremely elaborate, painstakingly constructed web of obligations and privileges - not a generic statement of good intentions. Stateless global terrorists do not qualify as POWs, in fact they are outcasts and criminals under the Conventions, and may in fact be subject to treatment as dire as summary execution, as my eager comment-mates mention. But summary execution isn't the issue. McCain made a clear allusion to perhaps the most outrageous - and consequential - slander and distortion of the past few years, namely that the US is bending the rules of civilized societies. That slander centers around the overall treatment of the terrorist detainees (Gitmo, indefinite detention, non-POW status, etc.). It's 100% inaccurate, it in effect tears up the Conventions by insisting that their provisions be given no meaning, and it has pernicious impact on the will of the US and others to effectively counter the threat.

Torture is not the issue. And if we make it the issue, the "moral" objections of you and others are dubious, at best, on the merits, if torture is defined down to include water-boarding. But torture is NOT the main issue in this area, where the "tarnished image" crap started years before the water-boarding controversy even began.

I'm afraid your wheels all come off at the end there. Where in my comment were the words "evil socialist tranzis"? If you don't understand the disastrous ongoing collapse in European ability to participate seriously in international security activities (which collapse is equal parts evaporating political will and related degradation of the military establishment), you might look to educate yourself.

Did I spout hatred? Don't think so. Yes I'm pissed off - way beyond pissed off - that McCain's drivel is what we get after the silence of the Bush years. For good, substantive, reasons, very partially outlined here.

American shoulders are carrying far too much of the burden - all the while being spit at by those whose burdens are being carried, here and abroad - and McCain's brilliant idea is to parrot some tired, empty, slanderous b.s. instead of leading, issuing some challenges, and calling spades spades.

And remember, would-be political consultants who appear not to have actually been close to that process before: just as those extremist cranks who think rule of law and the constitution are actually important components of our society must vote for McCain because "they have nowhere else to go," many others in the center who are not devotees of Beltway mythologies and who care about national security "have nowhere else to go" this fall. And many of them would understandably be far more energized and attracted by some original, painful, needed challenges to conventional wisdom and the failures of our allies than they are by these borrowed phrases from the NYT or Le Monde.

I heard some more snippets of the speech on the radio. McCain seems to think that during war-time some simple and important truths must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of stupid tropes, syrupy sentimental caveats, and genuflections to discredited and illogical aspirations.

We'll all be fine and things will work out - but jeebus, what a pathetic crop of presidential choices we have (and that went for the pre-primary situation, too, with the possible exception of Rudy - I said "possible").

Posted by Verlaine 2008-03-26 20:56|| 2008-03-26 20:56|| Front Page Top

#13 eager comment-mates? LOL - I'm happy if I'm included in your much more lucid and well-argued position.
Frank

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-26 21:04|| 2008-03-26 21:04|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm still hoping for Duncan Hunter as VP to bring sanity as real conservative values to the ticket. He'd also resign if forced by Maverick to defend the worst JMcC poitions...another reason why he won't get picked. I did, however, give Hunter's USMC Capt. son, Duncan D. Hunter, a contribution this week as Rep for my district...

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-26 21:09|| 2008-03-26 21:09|| Front Page Top

#15 Bravo, Verlaine! Well considered, well-written and practically irrefutable.

LH, I'd recommend Velcro for reattaching that glutimus maximus of yours Verlaine just handed you. Since I'm sure that you'll be getting it kicked off again here at the 'Burg, I don't think you should use anything too permanent for reattachment.

Posted by Skunky Elmereter3408 2008-03-26 21:32|| 2008-03-26 21:32|| Front Page Top

#16 Excellent summation Verlaine. Much more articulate and on the $$$ then I could ever put together - keep up the good fight.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-03-26 21:53|| 2008-03-26 21:53|| Front Page Top

#17 Frank G and Skunky, thanks for your kind words. Nothing personal against LH, not at all. In fact while I've not been as regular a reader here lately as I once was, I generally find LH's comments to be serious. Not that his today were not - but I admit to being way beyond exasperated with baseless assertions that never, never get addressed and refuted by the administration. And now the likely next prez makes him mark by adopting some of them. As AP says over at HotAir - heartache ......

Anyway, LH, apologies if anything I wrote seemed nasty or personal. I used to break goalie sticks over the net when I was younger and felt I had blown a save I could have made (and those sticks were expensive ....). So there's some history of lashing out here.

Posted by Verlaine 2008-03-26 21:54|| 2008-03-26 21:54|| Front Page Top

#18 the United States' standing on the world stage has been tarnished and that the country has an image problem after eight years of President Bush at the helm.

I love the response Verlaine. And, is it just me, or should we really be listening to "reporters" who can't even tell how long Bush has been in office (7 years/2 months)? Or is that "new-fangled" math too hard for CNN to grasp?

Posted by BA 2008-03-26 21:57|| 2008-03-26 21:57|| Front Page Top

#19 Verlaine, LH is a respected (for good reason) and knowledgeable (see his posts) commenter here - for quite a while (unwilling to check the archives - it makes me feel old). He's got thick skin. I'm willing to call him on BS when it occurs (and it does) - but your post was a work of of logic and subtle argument...I doubt I'll master the first, and never the second

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-26 22:09|| 2008-03-26 22:09|| Front Page Top

#20 My exposure to military in allied countries is less extensive than Verlaine's but I can echo his point: Brit etc. military are exhausted, demoralized and stretched to the breaking point. If you think public opinion/MSM is a burden for our guys and gals, it's an anvil dragging those good people down. A serious concern because while we will painfully recover, the Brits under Brown are already dissolving their starved military into the Euroforce.

Posted by lotp 2008-03-26 22:14|| 2008-03-26 22:14|| Front Page Top

#21 Yes, if we stop torturing outlaw belligerents, it will help us in our relations with allies and neutrals, and will likely gain us more than we get by torturing them. Whats so complicated about that? and yeah, it DOES appeal to the center, who dont like torture, and who dont think all the Euros are eevil socialist "tranzis" and arent going to be convinced by folks spouting hatred and playing loose with the facts.

When you're giving people who run around in civilian garb and killing others for political gain the same rights as civilized soldiers, you are actually punishing both the civilians who are being extorted and furthermore demonstrating that you really only keep your own soldiers from inflicting terror on the civilian population because you hate them and want them to lose.

The Geneva conventions weren't originally invented to protect soldiers. The people who wrote them couldn't have cared LESS about how soldiers were treated. They cared about keeping the civilians out of the conflict. The way they worked out was that soldiers who played by the rules got certain protections while those who hid behind civilians or terrorized civilians didn't.

It wasn't about the rights of the soldiers at all, that was merely a means to an end.

Al Qaeda and Iran's surrogates have both killed a lot more civilians in this war than we've killed combatants, and that's counting the ones on the field of battle itself.

And finally, I think there is a bit of "bait and switch" in the whole discussion, and that's why it makes the rest of us angry. One side talks about how "we" need to outlaw torture, but when it gets down to the details they want us to treat all these guys like POW's instead of unlawful combatants.

Which is equivalent, mostly, to saying the other side has the "right" to target civilians but we don't.

Which is (for example) how Syria got to use the population of Lebanon as human shields for its rocket attacks into Israel. So don't say it doesn't work, because it's worked horribly well.

Doing away with the idea of the Unlawful Combatant _legitimizes_ terror tactics.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-03-26 22:58|| 2008-03-26 22:58|| Front Page Top

#22 Beautifully argued, Verlaine. BUT, every presidential candidate that I can remember promised to consult more with allies and regain their -- or the world's -- respect. Clinton campaigned on that, and so did Bush fil. Each one was firmly believe by those who voted for them and by the Europeans, all convinced the previous president had squandered world love and respect.

This is required ritual posturing, and takes away a talking point.

Posted by trailing wife 2008-03-26 23:13|| 2008-03-26 23:13|| Front Page Top

#23 Very well said, Abdominal! I was too briefly trying to make the same point. The Conventions grew out of an attempt to protect non-combatants. Naturally the first step there is/was to define same (as well as places that ipso facto had protected status - hospitals, churches, etc.). Then later they got to trying to regulate warfare itself a bit, WRT treatment of POWs (definitions again), wounded, certains kinds of weapons technologies, etc. Which tended to protect combatants in some ways.

As McCain himself knows to his sorrow, unfortunately the implicit quid-pro-quo in treatment of POWs - formalized by the Conventions - has done little to protect the POWs of the US and other democracies, in practice. Somebody jump in here to add/correct, but the only belligerent to generally observe Geneva standards with our POWs was Nazi Germany. Imperial Japan was not a signatory.

This whole reciprocity thing hasn't, uh, exactly worked out. Which is why, when respectable people like Colin Powell et al with all sincerity say they want the US to be purer than pure in order to protect our own POWs, I sort of wince. First, such an approach to illegal combatants like AQ as Abdominal says is a body blow to the Conventions because it rewards totally (spectacularly) non-compliant individuals with the full protections and privileges (separate things) of compliant individuals (i.e., legit POWs). Second, uh - it doesn't work. Not even a little bit. Not at all. Ever. For obvious reasons.

Thus my wince.

But while I'm being utterly despondent about smart folks making gigantic stupid mistakes, let me mention George Shultz calling for total nukyler disarmament. Double yikes. One of the savviest and most decent guys ever to run parts of the big show, jumping on a painfully dumb bandwagon.

Posted by Verlaine 2008-03-26 23:16|| 2008-03-26 23:16|| Front Page Top

23:56 Frank G
23:56 JosephMendiola
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:44 trailing wife
23:38 USN,Ret.
23:34 trailing wife
23:34 Eric Jablow
23:33 trailing wife
23:27 USN,Ret.
23:16 Verlaine
23:13 trailing wife
23:00 trailing wife
22:58 Abdominal Snowman
22:56 trailing wife
22:51 www
22:49 trailing wife
22:29 Bright Pebbles
22:16 Frank G
22:16 lotp
22:16 BA
22:14 lotp
22:09 Frank G
22:04 Frank G