McCain has much to say about the importance of "success" in Iraq.
"We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran."
To those of us who remember VietNam, doesn't this sound familiar?
VietNam was a civil war, between the landless peasantry (who became the VietCong) and the French Colonialist government, who owned the land. The French were wise enough to leave, but we intervened on the misapprehension that if VietNam became "Communist", so would all Southeast Asia. Well, we lost, and it did, but Southeast Asia didn't and now Communism is dead.
So doesn't McCain's statement seem the product of the same lousy intelligence and foreign policy?
The Iraq war is not "winnable" by us. Once Saddam was eliminated, sectarian conflict was inevitable, because it was "a failed state". (Bush senior even knew this, which is why Desert Storm stopped short of Baghdad.) We can't repair a failed state, only the regional powers and the Iraqi people themselves (what few are left in the country) can, and it probably will become a protectorate of Iran, because the Shiites will want that protection against their Sunni neighbors.
McCain's understanding of all this is pathetically weak, epecially for someone with his level of "experience". On this issue at least, he is probably the least capable Republican that sought the nomination. Even is one has doubts about Obama, one can have no reasonable doubt about how poor a job McCain will do on Iraq. He has learned nothing from history.
Our foreign policy in the Middle East seems to resemble the game whack-a-mole (a favorite of toddlers) because from one week to another we find another "trouble spot" or "insurgent element" in either Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon or Palestine, and we then have to "whack" it. It seems not to have occurred to the Republicans that these insurgencies are related. Instead of understanding the regional politics behind this activity and identifying the funders of these "insurgents", the Republicans rely on empty sloganeering. Here is a quote from the McCain website, a perfect example:
"The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists."
This statement is nothing more than a wish. Who is supposed to do this? Our troops? How many years and how many trillions of dollars will go to this effort? And, what happens when one of the aforementioned "moles" pops its head up again? McCain never mentions the broader issues; they just don't exist for Republicans.
Ask people who are "on the fence" these questions.
Our children are our greatest resource, yet it’s the one in which we now invest the least. This wasn’t always the case. After the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957, within a few years the Kennedy and Johnson administrations massively increased federal funding for schools, and today’s well educated baby-boomers are the beneficiaries of this investment. The great economic boom of the turn of the millennium is the result: America was leading the world in technology, the highest value export.
Now, after two decades of Republican rule, either through Congressional majority or Presidential leadership, our educational system has deteriorated to a point where our children are now significantly behind those of other developed nations. Not coincidentally, our standard of living is declining and our currency is losing value. This is because we are losing the global leadership position in technology.
Our only hope for a return to the standard of living we all used to enjoy is to recapture this position of technological leadership, and government investment in education is the first step.
This is not a partisan issue, but it does cut across the interests of certain large service oriented corporations (like McDonald’s). They would rather keep children from becoming well educated because they want cheap labor, and educated people earn more. These corporations would prefer the American people as ignorant, docile workers, with low expectations of themselves and others. Sadly, these interests have had considerable influence in Republican administrations.
We need to fight against these interests for the good of our country, and I personally believe Barack Obama understands the importance of education for our collective future.
The FISA issue is a classic example of the inherent imperfection of political life. Obama was compelled to vote for a highly flawed piece of legislation, with some odious components.Why?
Well, we obviously needed some kind of wiretapping bill because after all (due to the complete mess Bush has made of our relations with the Moslem world) we now actually do face some kind of threat from extremists. But the bill is fraught with problems. It goes too far, and also contains the really troubling provision exonerating the telecom companies for snooping on citizens. Obviously, as BO has expressed, the Bill was not wholly to his liking, but had to be passed in order to keep some kind of wiretapping authority in place.
However, I do not expect that we will have to countenance this kind of nauseating legislation.in the future, once BO becomes president. I believe Obama will restore our relations with the Moslem world so that we will no longer be hated and a target for violence.
At this point, we cannot realistically form a critique of the countermeasures we have to take (odious as they may appear) in this situation without developing an understanding of how bad our situation is and how we got here, but that will be for another blog. (Any takers?)
Why would anyone believe in Barack Obama? Haven't we all seen too much in the way of dissimulation to accept that this candidate will in fact offer us a completely new vision of American Politics?
Faith is not the answer. Reason is. To one who has read both his books, the two most obvious things about Barack Obama are that he is extremely ntelligent and also eminently reasonable. He has demonstrated the uncanny ability to see both sides of an argument, and pick the better side, time and time again. That is not to say that those of us who are sickened and frustrated by the idiotic policies and politics of the Reagan-Bush dynasty would not be happier if Obama offered a complete reversal of every element of their administrations, but he will not. Instead he will sift through those policies and programs, rescuing and reforming what is capable of constructive change, and abolishing the rest. Of course, I do not "know" this, but the evidence from his book and his voting history points this way, so this is my prediction. I urge anyone who faces the same challenge to read the books and study the record
