Bacevich: Why Obama's better than McCain

I true conservative cannot vote for McCain or Obama - they are equally distateful for different reasons. A conservative must vote for Ron Paul as a write-in.

Well, I certainly agree with him that Bush is no conservative--he never was. Being pro-military and believing in the power of prayer don't make one a conservative. "Compassionate conservative" always meant "Liberal Republican," but conservatives who were desperate to end eight years of Democratic despoiling of the White House convinced themselves otherwise.

I can't go with his conclusion, though. In a perfect world, we could leave Iraq and forget it ever happened, but we're already mired in a costly occupation, and I'm not convinced that Obama's plan for withdrawal is better than McCain's to stick it out.

Also, when someone talks about America's "heedless march toward empire," it trips my BS detector. Our biggest problem in Iraq is that we want so badly not to be imperial. We want to teach them about voting and civil rights, rebuild their infrastructure, go home and start buying oil from them at market prices, and feel good about ourselves for helping another backward, violent nation to grow up. That's not the way an empire acts. The Roman or British Empire would have installed some sort of puppet regime that didn't blink unless they told it to, hauled all the oil and best people off as the spoils of war, and taken tribute from them as long as possible.

The only tribute we want is their gratitude. We're screwy, but we're not imperial.

"Our biggest problem in Iraq is that we want so badly not to be imperial. We want to teach them about voting and civil rights, rebuild their infrastructure, go home and start buying oil from them at market prices, and feel good about ourselves for helping another backward, violent nation to grow up. That's not the way an empire acts."

Any imperial strategy is going to reflect the political character of the nation doing the empire building. We are hot and bothered about "democracy promotion" in a way that the Romans and the British obviously were not, but that simply doesn't affect that our actions per se can't be considered imperial.

Bacevich shares with McCain a strong commitment to national service and both deserve our respect. Each were career military officers and each has a son who has served in Iraq. Sadly, Bacevich's son died in Iraq. His criticism of the war is part of his broader indictment of Wilsonian interventionism and largely bipartisan support of that approach since WWII. He would probably find common ground, historicaly, with the foreign policy views of William Jennings Bryan, Charles Lindberg, Robert Taft, George McGovern and Ron Paul.

Does Obama fall within this tradition? "Crunchy cons" looking for a repudiation of Wilsonian neo-con policies will be disappointed, I think, by an Obama Presidency. He's no Ron Paul. He opposed the Iraq war not because he opposes military interventions in general but because he thought the Iraq incursion was an example of a "stupid war." (Go ahead and read the text of his 2002 speech). This past week he has admitted that his election-year commitment to a 16-month troop withdrawal plan would be modified once in office and based on the advice of commanders in the field. Sound familiar?

Is McCain a Rumsfeld/Cheney neo-con? Hardly! I supported Mac over "W" in the 2000 primaries. His presidency would have been significantly better for the country -- and for conservatism -- than what we got from Bush 43. The war on terrorism would have been prosecuted more successfully. On the threat from Saddam Hussein, McCain would have been more likely than "W" to listen to Powell/Scowcroft than to the neocons. Even if a President McCain had decided to march on Baghad, there would have been no Paul Bremer, no Abu Ghraib, no showboating as Bush did with his "bring it on" bravado and carrier landings. We wouldn't have seen the out-of-control spending. He would have governed with a genuine mandate after besting Gore by a solid margin in 2000 and getting re-elected in a landslide four years later.

If you want to understand how McCain will be far better than "W" for the country and for conservatism, then try to imagine how different a McCain presidency would have been compared to what we got these past 8 years.

Rod: "But it's right and proper to fault the GOP for not challenging consumerist ideology in the name of conservatism, and for propagating a cynical cultural strategy."

I agree that it is right to fault political parties (either side) for not challenging Consumerism but what makes people think the GOP is a 'conservative' party? Sure, it's got some people who are Conservatives, but most of the leaders are driven by business interests (This is true in both parties). Once you grasp that, you see that the GOP leadership is not being cynical, but acting true to form. Bush didn't accomplish his work alone: Almost all the Republicans in Congress backed him every step along the way.

Our imperial adventures will be over sooner than almost anybody thinks. The war machine has run out of money. The most important issue is the ongoing financial crisis, people.

"The Great Unwind has begun, Citigroup Inc. strategists warned on Wednesday. As markets and economies de-leverage across the globe, investors should avoid companies and countries that have grown to rely too much on borrowed money. "We are now confronted by a broad bloodbath in the credit markets," Citigroup said. .... "The U.S. shows up as the world's greatest consumer of external capital, [so it] has the most to lose as this capital becomes less freely available."

Reaganite- I supported McCain heavily also in 2000 ad think we would be much better off if he had won. I do think that the party is making the same mistakes the Dems did when they hung on the New Deal/FDR concept for so long. The country and the world are at a different point than they were in 1980. General conservative principles (Bacevich's list is a pretty good one) ought to be used to solve new problems rather than just hang on to old solutions. Conservatives have been hurt by blindly supporting Bush.

Steve

As a political liberal (though I've voted for a few Republicans and some conservative Democrats along the way), I recuse myself from the main questions. I would like to offer a forest and trees comment or two.

A key component of imperialism is War as a policy (and, arguably, one could lump economic conquest in with that). Say what you will about US history, we have skirted that line and crossed it a bit here and there. The present policies, on balance, do cross that line. My suggested comparison point would be an apparent Bush admin policy of military intervention as the benchmark, and McCain's apparent desire to continue it vs. Obama's apparent desire to step away from it. War as a response is not policy; it is simple sanity. Thus, for example, I stand in praise of the conquest of Afghanistan, but in opposition to the invasion of Iraq. I hasten to point out that evidence has shown the bankruptcy of the Iraq decision, but I am not intending this as 20-20 I told you so hindsight.

Pyrrho so very rightly points to the deserved focus. Rod, you would be doing a great service to start a thread about (wording of your choice, of course) governance by deficit spending.

The American Conservative is a great magazine. I subscribe to both it and the National Review and nine times out of ten find myself agreeing more with the former than the latter. NR is way too hawkish for me. And unthinkingly so, IMO. I'm completely open to a good argument as to why these multiple wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Iran) are so important for the US but I never hear one. Is it really about access to oil? Because that would actually make sense to me, much more than the terrorist threat.

I'm really at a loss as to who to vote for this year. My first choice was Ron Paul but he's not even in the race anymore, to my knowledge.

All three of our top contenders (McCain, Hillary, Obama) represent big government and will spend our country into ruin. None of them have any good ideas on the economy, which to me is a crucial issue. McCain will appoint conservative justices to the SC, he's got that going for him. Obama seems the most committed to ending the war, that's a plus in his corner. Overall though, I see our country continuing its trajectory towards 'morally and financially bankrupt failed empire' status no matter who gets elected.

Our imperial adventures will be over sooner than almost anybody thinks. The war machine has run out of money. The most important issue is the ongoing financial crisis, people.

Exactly right. And that's what's so scary about this election.
Neither Bush nor McCain seems to have much interest in the financial situation, much less any coherent ideas about what to do about it. Meanwhile, both Obama and Clinton are mixing up the same toxic cocktail of policies -- tax increases, protective tariffs, vast new public spending programs -- that turned the 1930s into the Great Depression.

Seems we have a choice between drifting dangerously toward the falls or just swimming straight for them.

I don't know if I'm a "conservative" or not. As someone pointed out on another thread, the term has become almost meaningless.

What I do know is that the Republican Party has not brought smaller, more efficient government into effect; has not balanced the budget; and has actually done nothing or next to nothing to further the "family values" goals so often articulated. These last claims come to seem to be nothing more or less than a shuck, an attempt to garner votes for an agenda which in reality is all about increasing the power and wealth of a certain class.

Mr. Obama is not in favor of smaller government, but then again, neither is Mr. McCain, unless you think that pursuing an expensive and fruitless war is a blow in favor of smaller government.

"considering the alternative" is probably the most important comment, but I'm not sure where it takes me.

The Democrats will fund abortions for those who can't afford to pay for them and Obama will make sure that happens. At least McCain won't do that.

And the Republicans haven't curtailed spending or reduced the size of the government but the Democrats will be even more intrusive and grow it even larger.

As to the war, I'm not sure Obama has the judgment to handle Iran and I think that he may remove the troops too quickly and we will lose the gains that we've made in the last few months. I fear that his actions will put our troops at a greater risk when he's forced to send them back in to clean up the mess that he'll make removing them.

My guess is we will get a big Democrat majority in Congress that will apply some brakes to McCain. Obama's oratory skills along with that majority make him a very dangerous man. I've complained before that his lack of experience might be disastrous, add that to the unthinking idolatry he seems to inspire and ask yourself what chance conservatism of any stripe will have? As for the war I question Obama's experience and his judgment. His comment about taking the troops out and then putting them back if Al Queda gets the upper hand is an invitation to a bloodbath, rightly ridiculed by McCain.

And make sure he doesn't have any Credit Suisse "senior advisors" on staff, see www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/20/business/bank.php

Poor deluded souls claim to have lost nigh on $3 BILLION in six months after "an internal review of asset-backed securities positions in the collateralized debt obligations trading department found that the "intentional misconduct" had been limited to "a handful of traders" in that department and had not spread to management levels or product control."

Aren't we so glad to know that management is innocent of charges of vincible ignorance, and that their "product" could continue to earn income at humungeous loss without taint of fraud...

God forbid they would be cogniscant of the rot and continue to operate...

... that's illegal right?

As Augustine of Hippo wittily remarked: Sin makes you stupid.

Oops my bad - we're losing $3 billion a week in Iraq already right?
What harm can a few bad apples do?

Eureka! Obama could kill two birds with one stone and solve the homeland security and universal health care conundrum in one fell swoop: Institute the draft for 12 months National Service with VA benefits for life: send the fit'n'eligible off to war and get the rest to play nanny at home. Leave the financiers playing their shell games at the Fed since our GSE(*) sugar-daddy Freddie Mac and his honey Fannie Mae will provide all the necessary capital needed, right? If they can't find any capital, tax their fake capital gains instead...

(*government sponsored enterprise)

Pyrrho: I've greatly enjoyed and benefited from your economics posts this week (and hope you're over your flu). Your predictions seem solid to me, with my limited knowledge, and this is another reason I lean towards Obama. Yes, it is possible that his economic policy choices will be worse for the times than McCain's (although I expect either will have reasonably solid economic advisory teams). But I think that any major economic problems for the US over the coming four years will potentially enflame social strife, particularly racial strife, because of the disproportionate impact of a financial crisis on heavily minority areas with little community-level social safety net. I think the hardest hit communities will be much less likely to descend in to any kind of true chaos with a President Obama working his ass off to at least give them the impression that the feds are doing as much as they can to help, even if that isn't all that much.

Bless,
Doug

Thanks, Doug. I agree that having a President Obama in office during an economic crisis would be a net plus in keeping it from widening into a social crisis.

There's an interesting article by Steve Stark in the Boston Phoenix called "Race gets in the race", which I thought expressed by views about Obama's rise quite ably. Money quote: "Obama’s fast-track to success could be alienating working-class white voters, reminding them of their nemesis: affirmative action." If he does not get elected this fall, my political epitaph for him would be: "He grabbed for the brass ring too early." If he had worked his way up to the presidency the conventional way, through Governor of Illinois, I think he would have effectively blunted this affirmative action talk. Anyway, an obit is premature, and he'll be a factor in politics for decades no matter what happens.

McCain, by a nose.

There is a GOOD reason to maintain a military presence in the Middle East (even if they are merely sitting around playing cards) and that is called "petroleum."

1. Judges
2. Judges
3. Judges

Remember, Obama wanted to bomb Pakistan, which is, to the best of my knowledge still sort of on our side.

Posted by: Charles Cosimano | March 20, 2008 11:13 AM

I hear people repeating this often and it is not true. Obama said that if we had actionable intel on the location of high-level al-Qaeda elements within Pakistan and the Pakistan government refused to act, then he would authorize bombing the targets. Now if you want to argue to the merits of that, fine, but at least be honest about what Obama really said.

Obama would be a disaster at this point in time. "Conservative" government will be meaningless if there is no civilization left to govern.

It is impossible for a thinking and fair person to come up with that conclusion. Like most conservatives, you don't care about this civilization, religion, or anything else, so long as the Republicans win. The Republican Party, if it continues in power, will destroy America, and murder more millions. Voting Republican is un-ethical, un-American, and anti-Christian.

Focus on the person, not the party. Saying McCain represents the entirety of the Republican party is like saying Paris Hilton is the pinnacle of American culture.

Wow. The fact that you think someone is qualified as a president just because of his race is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you should make your decisions on bigger factors, like his level of experience.

I think Bacevich's view of our role in the world, our addiction to foreign oil due to our consumerism, and our need to get our own house in order vs getting involved in preventative wars to avoid examining ourselves is spot on. We need a new approach that has at its foundation a philosophy that requires us to examine the idea that Americans can just assume that our government should go to war in oil rich countries so that we can control them and to protect our extravagant way of life. Between learning to live within our means as individuals and as a country, along with energy independence, we may be able to change the course of our foreign policy that Bush set into motion that includes invading countries in the name of a global war on terror.

I think Bacevich's view that terrorism should be fought more as a criminal matter and involve special police operations vs military actions is likely a better more sustainable approach. In other interviews, he acknowledges the need to contain terrorist activity, but not with expanding our military actions and giving the President the power to invade whenever he sees fit. I think Bacevich is conservative more in the vein of an Abraham Lincoln that believes:
"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. "

Might is not always right, and certainly not always effective. Bacevich warns that there are always unintended consequences of war that should keep us very cautious in our decisions to go into other countries to impose our political agenda. Check out Bacevich on Bill Moyers, The Journal on PBS. You can find a nice video of an interview that will give you a good synopses of his view. Understanding his view takes a paradigm shift and the ability to follow his logic of consumerism (living beyond our means and being a nation of buyers vs producers) => oil addiction => dependence on the Middle East => giving the President power to go to war (Congress is not living up to its role in balancing power between the executive branches) => further creates an imperial Presidency => the cycle repeats unless we examine our way of life and question where it is leading us.

Although Bacevich may not be running for President because of Bacevich theories specifically, his approach gives us an opportunity to rethink the underlying tenants of our foreign policy and to chart a different course to change our standing in the world, become energy independent, and get our own house in order so that we can live within our means. I think Bacevich's main conservative point is that if we do this, we will be better able to protect American ideals of freedom instead of being intertwined and beholden to other countries to determine our destiny. Bacevich is really a throw back to big ideas like our founders had. I'm excited to read more about him and his ideas because I think he's on to something.