
Keith T. Bukovich |
What Can America Expect from President McCain in
Foreign Policy? |
In September of 1901, Theodore Roosevelt said he
thought America in world affairs should "speak softly and carry a
big stick." The thrust of that remark appears not to have been lost
on Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for
president. For both Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan are
political heroes to McCain and like those former presidents, he too
seems to feel that America's military power is a force for positive
change in the world.
Recently, McCain has been a leading supporter of
President's Bush's troop "surge" in Iraq—a position some journalists
and political observers feel has led to voter support in the
primaries since security has improved in Iraq—at least temporarily.
Now that McCain has his party's nomination for president locked up,
what does his support for the surge suggest his foreign policy might
look like were he elected in November?
For one thing, McCain contends that the surge has
shown that with sufficient troop levels the United States can dampen down the
violence and support the newly begun democratic government in Iraq.
The alternative, he said in early February in Norfolk, Virginia,
"would have catastrophic consequences. I believe al Qaida would
trumpet to the world that they had defeated the United States of
America." In that same speech, he criticized Democratic senators
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for wanting "to set a date for
withdrawal in Iraq. I believe that would have catastrophic
consequences. They [terrorists] would try to follow us home." McCain
also talked tough about Iran and asserted he was best prepared to
deal with security threats on his first day in office.
The best indication as to McCain's foreign policy
as commander-in-chief is to be found in an article he wrote last
year for Foreign Affairs.[1]
Here one reads about his less well known (or discussed) promises if
he is elected president. For one thing, he would expand the Army and
the Marine Corps to 900,000 troops from the currently planned
750,000. He would also advocate a U.S.-led "League of Democracies"
to act internationally when the United Nations cannot or will not;
plus, he would create a new government unit, patterned after the
World War II-era OSS (Office of Strategic Services), "to fight
terrorist subversion" and to "take risks that our bureaucracies
today rarely consider taking." Clearly, McCain envisions a very
activist American role on the world stage during his
presidency—especially in regard to what he considers vital U.S.
security interests.
McCain has selected an interesting mix of foreign
policy advisers. They comprise traditional Republican "realists,"
who advocate a pragmatic view of the world (something like that of a
Henry Kissinger who, along with three other ex-Secretaries of State,
has endorsed McCain for president), but also neoconservatives, who
pushed for the Iraq invasion, advocate stronger action to counter
Iran's and North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions, and favor using
American power to transform the Muslim world. This second group may
prove problematic for McCain as the presidential campaign heats up
and a sole Democratic opponent finally emerges, for it includes some
whose positions have already been discredited with large segments of
the voting public. Randy Scheunemann, for example, the campaign's
director of foreign policy and national security, was a staunch
proponent of the 2003 Iraq invasion who dismissed warnings of
unintended consequences. Another, William Kristol, the editor of the
conservative Weekly Standard, has supported the Iraq invasion
and its continuation in many television appearances, and James
Woolsey, who speaks mostly on energy security concerns, is a former
CIA director. Though McCain's advisers are hesitant to publicly
criticize President Bush and his foreign policy team, they suggest
that, while McCain does agree with many White House policies, he is
critical of the way they have been implemented.
To his credit, McCain has broken with the
Republican establishment by his more moderate position on
immigration, greater concern about global warming, support for
campaign finance reforms, and, very importantly, opposition to the Bush
administration regarding the Guantanamo Bay prison and "advanced
[i.e., torturous] interrogation techniques" like waterboarding.
Clearly, as president, McCain will pursue some policies that differ
from those of the Bush administration, but on other issues, such as
Iran and North Korea, he will be equally firm (some have said
"bellicose").
Unlike senators Clinton and Obama (or, for that
matter, President Bush), John McCain would come to the presidency
with actual combat experience as a former Navy pilot (and prisoner
of war for five and a half years in North Vietnam), in addition to
decades of examining national security issues and very extensive
foreign travel during his years in the U.S. Senate. He has made it
clear that he plans to use national security as an issue against the
eventual Democratic nominee in the upcoming general election
campaign.
Still, McCain has not spelled out in complete
detail how he would deal with the many and varied threats to
America's security. Would he continue to keep, say, over 100,000
troops in Iraq if the situation in that country deteriorates further
or politically stagnates? Would he as commander-in-chief follow
through on threats to attack Iran if it seems close to constructing
a nuclear weapon? How would he deal with continuing political
instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan? How does he view the rapidly
growing economic power of China (to say nothing of Taiwan) in Asia
and an increasingly combative Russia in Europe? His Democratic
opponent will, of course, face the same questions, but McCain on the
campaign trail has sounded much more willing to use military force.
McCain addresses other, more pragmatic questions
as well in his Foreign Affairs piece. Along with increasing
the armed forces by 150,000 additional soldiers and marines, he also
promises to increase funding for public diplomacy and to launch a
"crash program" to train more armed service personnel and civilians
in critical foreign languages (Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, etc.]. Though it
is still early in the presidential election year, McCain has yet to
spell out where he expects to find the billions of dollars needed to
recruit and train these additional troops and foreign language
specialists, a question complicated by his willingness to retain
President Bush's tax cuts.
At the heart of McCain's national security
strategy is his belief that America's armed forces need to be
expanded. In September 2007, he spoke told an audience at the
conservative Hudson Institute think tank that "Prevailing in Iraq
and Afghanistan are [sic] critical to defeating the threat
posed by radical Islamic extremists, but are [sic] not the
last battle in this global challenge. We are in a long war, and I am
afraid the U.S. government is not adequately prepared to fight."[2]
So, precisely how would McCain better prepare the United States to
fight a wider war against terrorists or others? Presently, the
Pentagon says it does not have enough troops to carry out any other
major land operations and that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan
have almost depleted its equipment. To make matters more difficult,
traditional U.S. allies such as Great Britain and Australia are
unlikely at this point to deploy additional troops in either Iraq or
Afghanistan. If the United States under a McCain presidency were to
enlarge the military, it would require more defense spending and/or
a military draft, both of which would be, politically, very hard
sells indeed, given America's pressing domestic problems—rising
unemployment, crippling health care costs, social security funding
worries, large federal budget deficits, credit and housing
dislocations, increasing energy costs, etc.
Some may be surprised to learn that McCain's
views on the use of U.S. military power have shifted over time. For
example, as a first-term Republican congressman in 1983, McCain drew
considerable attention for opposing President Ronald Reagan's
extension of the U.S. Marine deployment in Lebanon. He said in a
speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, "The longer we
stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be
trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first
place." (Whether that quote comes back to haunt him in the
presidential campaign this fall remains to be seen.) However, in the
last couple decades McCain has supported American interventions in
Bosnia, Kosovo, and (twice) in Iraq.
Regarding the present war in Iraq, McCain has
long advocated a larger military presence in that country. Though a
keen backer of the invasion, he expressed concern within weeks of
toppling Saddam Hussein that the United States needed more troops. His
appeals to Rumsfeld's Defense Department were largely ignored, he
claims. Despite these frustrations, McCain has consistently voted to
continue funding the war.
At a town hall meeting (3 Jan 2008) during New
Hampshire's primary campaign, McCain told a questioner that it
"would be fine with me" if the United States had a military presence
in Iraq for 100 years. That quote is sure to be used against him by
his Democratic opponent this fall but, in fairness, it should be
noted that McCain stipulated as part of his answer that he would
favor the U.S. presence as long as Americans were not being killed
and al Qaida still posed a threat. That is, he was envisaging a
peacetime presence like that of American troops presently in Germany
and Japan. However, to some voters in the presidential campaign, it
might also sound like the half-century U.S. troop presence in South
Korea--along with the considerable costs that have gone with it. At a
time when the United States is facing pressing domestic economic
concerns, another longstanding foreign troop presence may prove
unpalatable.
While Senator McCain trumpets the surge's success
in quelling the violence and decreasing American deaths in Iraq,
U.S. commanders there have been more cautious, saying that the
decrease in violence is tenuous and is due in part to the cease-fire
by radical Shiite militiamen. Indeed, some officers have warned
that the death and violence would quickly escalate if American
troops leave before the Iraqi military is ready to take over
responsibility for security. They also warn that al Qaida continues
to exert a strong presence in some areas of Iraq and, very
importantly, the U.S. tactics that have worked in Baghdad and Anbar
province may not be as effective in other trouble spots.
Nevertheless, as president, John McCain would
push for not only a continued large American presence in Iraq, but
also more vigorous intervention in other parts of the world where
groups hostile to the United States thrive. Indeed, he sees the war
on terrorism as also a war of ideas.
McCain believes that the United States can
stabilize troubled regions, given adequate troop strength. The
lessons of Vietnam and Iraq, McCain said in May 2007, are that "we
must never again launch a military operation with too few troops to
complete the mission and build a secure, stable, and democratic
peace. When we fight a war, we must fight to win."[3]
However, every president is constrained by practical realities.
Whatever McCain's foreign policy instincts may tell him, as
president he will be limited by the current wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. As Gary Samore, vice-president of the nonpartisan
Council on Foreign Relations, said recently, "Bush has overdrawn the
bank account on use of force for the time being."
Eastern Michigan University
kbukovich@emich.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|