Ezra Klein: McCain's Judgment

« The White House Responds | Main | Iran »

May 24, 2007

McCain's Judgment

Howard Fineman writes:

"We are in the midst of a slow-motion war, and McCain is a warrior. He knows the world, its dangers and wonders; he knows the military, its powers and its limitations."

You see this sort of thing asserted about McCain all the time. The individuals asserting it almost universally agree that Iraq is a quagmire and the war a historic mistake -- but they don't seem to notice that McCain not only supported it, but supported it more enthusiastically than virtually any other prominent figure in the country, and that his full-throated advocacy of a catastrophic invasion should probably be taken into account when evaluating his judgment and knowledge.

McCain, rather clearly, doesn't understand the limitations of the military, otherwise he wouldn't have supported this war. And many pundits, rather clearly, don't care about the substantive results and outcomes of McCain's judgment -- it's enough that he seems like the sort of guy who gets the military, who could bullshit with enlisted men, who could drop his voice to a grave whisper when speaking of casualties. He fits their view of what a guy who understands the military would be like, and that's enough. That his plan for Iraq appears to be the doomed surge and an admonition to the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds to "Stop the bullshit" is, of course, neither here nor there.

May 24, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Hey, he was a fighter jockey! (And, I'm not diminishing his ordeal and valor as a POW).

But, exactly what credentials does he have as a military 'expert' that any other fighter jockey who ever battled in the air during wartime?

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 24, 2007 1:10:42 PM

his full-throated advocacy of a catastrophic invasion should probably be taken into account when evaluating his judgment and knowledge

Indeed, as it should be for others.

McCain, rather clearly, doesn't understand the limitations of the military, otherwise he wouldn't have supported this war.

Probably. He says he would have sent more troops, and he probably would have (as almost any sane person would have). That too would have been wrong, but it might have worked better militarily.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 24, 2007 1:22:35 PM

I'm almost positive McCain knows more about the military, in a factual sense, than Ezra or any of the other commenters on this site. This has very little to with his experience as a POW in Vietnam and a lot more to do with his two decade long service on the Senate Armed Forces Committee, his relationships with military brass, etc.

Now obviously there's a difference between knowing the intracicies of the U.S. military and having a sound national security strategy. The latter thing is an opinion--meaning people have disagreements on what it is--but the former is simply factual. I think McCain's mastery in this particular area is indisputable. For example he clearly "knows the military, its powers and limitations" better than Barack Obama, even though Barack Obama (in my opinion) has a far superior sense of what U.S. foreign policy should look like.

Does McCain have illusions about what the U.S. military can and cannot accomplish? Does McCain really think the U.S. can turn Iraq around? I'm not so sure he does; in fact I'm pretty sure he knows in his heart that the U.S. effort in Iraq is doomed. I think he's known it for a long, long time. But the key is that, to McCain, the consequences of pulling out of Iraq are so great that, even if there is even the slightest possibility of success, then the United States has to stay. It's really a tragedy on many levels.

Posted by: Korha | May 24, 2007 1:36:23 PM

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. McCain is a militarist of the first order. To him, you do not deal with your "enemies" by talking to them, you do not use diplomatic and economic "soft power", you ATTACK! Talking is weakness, coercive power is too slow, and in spite of his insistance that America's military is second to none, he attributes to these much smaller, poorer enemies the power to actually threaten the US, giving even more impetus to his "military first" solutions.

The US will be much safer and more prosperous, for that matter, when our leadership is more interested in living in peace with our neighbors than dominating them. But it will not be the "warriors" like John McCain that bring about the real solutions. That will be left to another time, a future when America has lost so much power, prestige and economic strength that she is forced to consider other options...

mikey

Posted by: mikey | May 24, 2007 3:29:55 PM

Jim Webb is the guy who truly understands the strengths and limitations of the military.

Posted by: MQ | May 24, 2007 5:36:25 PM

god I'm sick of the locution a "warrior." It has these "conan the barbarian" connotations of the single fighter, the hero king. McCain was never that and, as far as I know, none of our military are that. They serve in a big organization that tells them what to do, and when to do it. McCain's personal experience, as Jimfrom portland puts it, was as a *pilot* and then as a *prisoner.* Can I say for the record that lots of people are in prison for five years? And lots of people get tortured for five years? In fact, lots of americans are in prison right now. When they get out we don't laud them for their "warrior courage" and we don't think that their time in prison fits them to determine when and how the rest of the country should fight.

aimai

Posted by: aimai | May 24, 2007 6:34:42 PM

his full-throated advocacy of a catastrophic invasion should probably be taken into account when evaluating his judgment and knowledge.

And maybe even more importantly, his continued full-throated advocacy of the war well after it was clear to anyone with even the rudiments of a brain that it was doomed.

McCain has demonstrated no judgment and no character. Now he's going to end his sad career with another high-profile election defeat and that will be the story of John McCain.

Posted by: Jason | May 24, 2007 6:43:25 PM

And maybe even more importantly, his continued full-throated advocacy of the war well after it was clear to anyone with even the rudiments of a brain that it was doomed.

His ideas about the war are no worse than those of most Democrats, who have a variety of ways of not dealing with reality, from believing that our presence is what's making things so bad, so if we leave things will magically get better, to believing that nothing we are doing or can do will prevent total meltdown in Iraq, so we may as well leave now and roast weenies over the holocaust that ensues.

McCain has demonstrated no judgment and no character.

And which politician has demonstrated those about Iraq?

Posted by: Sanpete | May 24, 2007 7:54:03 PM

On re-reading the fineman quote I was brought up sharp by the phrase "slow motion war." What makes this "slow motion" other than the incompetence of those who are running it?

I love how Sanpete magically makes the war the democrats problem by arguing that McCain and the other republican *supporters* of this failed policy are "no worse" than the Dems. Look, if the republicans who wanted this war don't have a strategy for staying and winning *or* for getting out safely that isn't the fault of everyone else in the world who stood on the side and shouted "don't do it, its a really bad idea." Some ideas are so hideously bad that there is no making them better. As ATrios is wont to say "you can't unshit the bed." If you burn down your neighbors house its not the fire department's fault that they can't rebuild it by putting out the fire. Those are different tasks. The one thing you can say is that nobody who wanted to set the fire in the first place (or their cheerleaders) is in any position to give advice on what to do next. That would be McCain, the entire Republican caucus, joe lieberman and, of course, sanpete.

aimai

Posted by: aimai | May 24, 2007 8:21:52 PM

I love how Sanpete magically makes the war the democrats problem by arguing that McCain and the other republican *supporters* of this failed policy are "no worse" than the Dems.

You're in love with your own imagination, aimai: I implied nothing about this being the Democrats' problem. McCain's surge plan is actually far better than the Democratic proposals, any one of which would quickly lead to far worse things. Those putting forward the withdrawal plans are lucky they aren't able to make them law, because the electoral advantage from following the polls here would largely evaporate when the TV images of a far worse slaughter in Iraq ensued.

You do illustrate my point about the unreality of the typical liberal view of what to do in Iraq. What do you think will happen if we leave? Maybe Atrios has some clever excremental invocation to explain that too.

The one thing you can say is that nobody who wanted to set the fire in the first place (or their cheerleaders) is in any position to give advice on what to do next. That would be McCain, the entire Republican caucus, joe lieberman and, of course, sanpete.

Your imagination again. I strongly opposed this war when it mattered most, before it happened. You and Atrios aren't so firmly rooted in the reality-based community as you imagine.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 24, 2007 9:12:25 PM

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of Democrats that supported the War initially. Since that time most of them have come to their senses and are now apologizing for that mistake and trying to take the country in the best direction we can find. Republicans that continue to support the war despite the total failure of the invasion shouldn't be trusted on foreign policy.

Posted by: Ben | May 24, 2007 9:20:52 PM

Republicans that continue to support the war despite the total failure of the invasion shouldn't be trusted on foreign policy.

What about Democrats who have their own unreal ideas about what to do now, especially if they too supported the war?

Posted by: Sanpete | May 24, 2007 9:38:36 PM

Unreal is a matter of opinion Sanpete. Pulling out may indeed prove to be a good or bad plan. We simply don't know yet. What we do know is that the invasion was a bad idea from the beginning and people who continue to support that plan shouldn't be trusted. Someone who supported the invasion but who now admits it was a mistake at least has some grasp on reality. Someone who supported the invasion but now both admits it was a mistake and has a new plan to get us out of there is worth considering. More of the same with no end or plan just isn't an option I'm willing to listen to.

Posted by: Ben | May 24, 2007 9:58:51 PM

most Democrats, who have a variety of ways of not dealing with reality, from believing that our presence is what's making things so bad, so if we leave things will magically get better

Cite, please.

Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | May 24, 2007 10:35:00 PM

We simply don't know yet.

This is another way of avoiding reality. We have plenty of evidence to make very probable inferences about what's likely to happen if we leave. What do you think will happen when 140,000 soldiers who are presently patrolling, defending, attacking, finding and defusing bombs, and so on, leave? Without that resistance, the forces presently trying kill each other will be far more free to do what they want. This is something liberals don't want to focus on.

Someone who supported the invasion but who now admits it was a mistake at least has some grasp on reality.

Or a grasp on the polls. No one I'm aware of who supported the war changed their view until the polls had already shifted decisively against the war.

Someone who supported the invasion but now both admits it was a mistake and has a new plan to get us out of there is worth considering.

Worth considering, of course. But when the plan turns out to be completely unrealistic, which the Democratic withdrawal plans are, the sad reality sets in that these people still aren't thinking clearly about Iraq.

Kvetch, the view that it's the presence of our troops that are the biggest problem in Iraq and that things will improve if we leave has been expressed several times here by liberal commenters. It has long been said by some Democratic leaders, including Pelosi and some major candidates, that our presence is what keeps the Iraqis from "standing up," and that if we leave they will be forced to start providing their own security and reach a political settlement, which Pelosi says will lead to an end to the fighting. If you don't know what the positions of the leading Democrats are, I can find some links, but this ought to be common knowledge.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 24, 2007 11:31:59 PM

McCain has demonstrated no judgment and no character.

And which politician has demonstrated those about Iraq?

The Democrats deserve their share of the blame. Whether they deserve the same blame as the GOP, or 2/3 of it, or whatever, I don't know.

BUT I would say that few outside the White House have been as persistently doltish as McCain.

Posted by: Jason | May 25, 2007 12:28:30 AM

We have plenty of evidence to make very probable inferences about what's likely to happen if we leave. What do you think will happen when 140,000 soldiers who are presently patrolling, defending, attacking, finding and defusing bombs, and so on, leave?

There will be a power vacuum and various factions will kill each other trying to fill it.

Posted by: Jason | May 25, 2007 12:32:11 AM

It won't just be the combatants being killed, of course. Even more it will be people who would prefer not to take up arms, minding their own business, who will be targeted and drawn/forced into the war for defense and revenge.

Though there may be some, I don't know of any politician in either party who has distinguished herself as wise in regard to Iraq. McCain was deadly wrong getting us, but he's closer to being right now than many others.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 25, 2007 2:49:50 AM

It has long been said by some Democratic leaders, including Pelosi and some major candidates, that our presence is what keeps the Iraqis from "standing up," and that if we leave they will be forced to start providing their own security and reach a political settlement, which Pelosi says will lead to an end to the fighting.

Which is a hell of a long way from "things will magically get better"...but whatever.

Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | May 25, 2007 1:26:25 PM

That would indeed be magic, given the reality of the situation there. (But I expect you knew the "magically" part was my gloss on it.)

Posted by: Sanpete | May 25, 2007 1:34:11 PM

Well, I could just as easily "gloss" the anti-withdrawal position as "If we just keep our troops there indefinitely, sooner or later Iraq will magically turn into a peaceful, prosperous nation."

I fail to see what this particular game accomplishes.

Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | May 25, 2007 5:30:52 PM

Kvetch, there's nothing wrong with your gloss of the anti-withdrawal position if indeed people say that if we stay, peace will come. I'd gloss that the same way you do, because that would be magic. That's not the anti-withdrawal position I hold, though. I don't expect peace in Iraq for a long time, and very probably not while we're there. But I do see some chance that we can keep things from exploding while the Iraqis try to get a better handle on running their own country, enough that we'll be able to mostly or entirely leave. I don't expect that to happen right away either, but if it does happen, it will likely be much sooner than peace.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 25, 2007 7:17:34 PM

McCain's surge plan is actually far better than the Democratic proposals, any one of which would quickly lead to far worse things. Those putting forward the withdrawal plans are lucky they aren't able to make them law, because the electoral advantage from following the polls here would largely evaporate when the TV images of a far worse slaughter in Iraq ensued.

And you know this because?????

Posted by: Col Bat Guano | May 28, 2007 12:57:22 AM

Not sure which part you're wondering about, Colonel. I explained some of it above. See here for some thoughts from others that mostly coincide with mine.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 28, 2007 1:42:38 AM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘