McCain: a roll-the-dice commander
By
Gideon Rachman, from the Financial Times, September
2, 2008
The world
has been moving John McCain’s way over the past year. The success of the “surge” in Iraq has helped
his cause. So has the Russian invasion
of Georgia. On both issues, the
Republican candidate for the presidency took positions that now look prescient
and courageous.
More generally, the sense that the
world is getting more dangerous helps Republicans in general – and a tough,
experienced, military man such as Mr. McCain in particular. Why take the risk
of electing a neophyte such as Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate?
Opinion polls consistently show that the American public
has more faith in Mr. McCain as commander-in-chief. He looks like the safe choice for dangerous
times.
But this is wrong. Mr.
McCain will not run a “safe” foreign policy.
He adores rolling the dice. His
decision to select Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as
his running mate typifies the man. It is
a big risk. It could turn out to be
inspired. Or it might turn out to be a
disaster. But it is not “safe”.
Mr. McCain approaches international affairs in the same
spirit. His instinct is always to take
the radical option and to march towards the sound of gunfire.
It
was indeed courageous to back the idea of sending more troops to Iraq, at a
time when the war was going so badly.
But it was the same instinct to choose the bold, aggressive option that
made Mr. McCain such an enthusiastic backer of the Iraq war in the first
place. Indeed, he was arguing for the
invasion of Iraq well before the terror attacks on New York and
Washington. That now looks reckless.
The
Georgian crisis also looks, at first sight, like a vindication for Mr.
McCain. He has been a longstanding critic
of the Russian government. He saw the
crisis in Georgia coming a long time ago.
When
I visited Georgia last April I discovered that President Mikheil
Saakashvili counted Mr. McCain as one of his closest
friends and allies. Mr. Saakashvili told me (with a laugh) that the South Ossetians – whose rebel enclave he later attacked, with
such disastrous consequences – had even shot a missile at a helicopter carrying
Cindy McCain, the Senator’s wife. And
the Georgian president told me proudly that Mr. McCain had given him a gift – a
bullet-proof vest.
Even at the time, this
struck me as an ambiguous present. Was
it saying, I’m behind you all the way; or was it saying, best of luck, I’ll be
cheering for you – from a safe distance?
Now that Georgia has been so severely mauled by Russia, the dangerous
ambiguities in the policies pushed by Mr. McCain and the Bush administration
are even clearer. The Georgians were
flattered, hugged and trained by the Americans.
But when the Russian tanks rolled in, there was little the west could do.
Mr. McCain says that President Teddy Roosevelt is one of his
heroes. But Mr. McCain’s proclamation in
the aftermath of the Russia’s (sic) invasion – that “we are all Georgians now” –
was the opposite of Roosevelt’s famous advice to “speak softly and carry a big
stick.” It was tough talk, with very
little to back it up.
Mr.
McCain’s failure to spell out the implications of his strong rhetorical support
for Georgia may mean that he has failed to think things through – or just that
he does not want to alarm voters. But
the Republican needs to answer some difficult questions.
Is the US really prepared to fight Russia to protect Georgia and
Ukraine – as Mr. McCain’s firm support for swift Nato membership for these countries implies? Are we entering a new cold war, as his
determination to isolate Russia suggests? If the tough talk is not backed up by
tough action, what does that do to American credibility?
Mr.
McCain’s instrinct certainly is to confront Russia –
and indeed China. Even before the
conflict in Georgia, he was arguing for throwing Russia out of the Group of
Eight and forming a new League of Democracies.
Mr. McCain’s confrontational instincts are even more to the fore
when it comes to Iran. He has said that
the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran. Taken at face value – and given what we know
of Iran’s nuclear programme – that sounds like a
commitment to attack Iran within the first term of a McCain presidency.
The Obama camp argue
that Mr. McCain will simply continue with the policies of President George W.
Bush. The comparison is certainly
interesting. In some ways, Mr. McCain is
a more reassuring figure – because he is curious and has thought hard about
foreign policy for many years. But in
other respects, Mr. McCain might make Mr. Bush look like a cautious
softie. It was Mr. McCain, not Mr. Bush,
who was the favourite of the neo-conservative wing of
the Republican party, when the two men ran against
each for the Republican nomination in 2000.
Mr. McCain’s policies on Iran, Russia and China are more hawkish even
than those of the Bush administration.
Then
there is the matter of temperament. Mr.
Bush is a sunny and optimistic person.
Mr. McCain is funnier, darker and angrier. Mr. Bush steered clear of Vietnam. Mr. McCain really is a warrior, whose
autobiography begins “I was born into a tradition of military service” – and whose
books are full of brooding reflections on the nature of honour.
In international crises, the character and instincts of the
American president are critical. Mr. Obama is by temperament a cautious, pragmatic
conciliator. Mr. McCain is aggressive,
unorthodox and radical.
Sometimes, of course, the radical
choice is the right one. Mr. McCain
would be an interesting choice for president.
But safe?
Forget about it.
Return to Institute of Election
Analysis Home Page