Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:When I worked for the doctor's union, they had a saying that if you are a cancer patient, the medical speciality of your physician will determine the type of treatment you will received.
Example:
Surgeons will want to operate to cut out the cancer.
Oncologists will want to use chemotherapy to treat the cancer.
Radiologists will want to use radiation to treat the cancer.
We see this same example with John McCain. His dominating interest as a Senator has been the U.S. Military to the exclusion of most other issues. He own and his family's history is military. It is obvious that his first approach to resolving any issue is reflective of his military chauvinism. He tends to believe that military action is the solution of choice. That's a very dangerous bias against peaceful methods.
The speeches McCain has been making on his latest tour are really scary. His militarism is unmistakable. I suspect he is scaring the leaders of other countries, too.
I wonder why McCain is so different from General Ike Eisenhower when he became president?
BBB
Ok, back to your post...
First off all, McCain's "dominating interest" while in the Senate has never been the military so I have no idea where you got that from. His signature issues have been Government spending, Campaign Finance Reform and his crusade against government pork spending (aka "Earmarks" as they are more recently referred to...).
If you read the major legislation McCain has been behind you'll find things like the Gramm-Rudman bills and McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill.
He also served on the Commerce Committee (where he doesn't have much of a remarkable record) and Indian Affairs Committee where he was pretty well known and respected for trying to clean up the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
His major military issues early in his Senate career were Veterans care, POW/MIA issues and normalizing diplomatic relations with Vietnam. I doubt many people would consider any of these to be acts of sabre rattling.
Contrary to your assertion, there is no indication that his first approach to solving issues involves the use of military force. His two major forays into that area at all were his support of Bill Clinton on the issue of sending peacekeeping forces into Bosnia along with other NATO countries and his support of Bush in sending tropps into Afganistan and Iraq. I doubt anyone (other than perhaps the Serbs) seriously sees the use of NATO troops in Bosnia as an act of military aggression. His other actions as far as support of or against Bush policies have varied. He supported the Iraq resolution (in support of Bush) and also wrote an amendment to a bill to halt the use to torture methods (which Bush opposed) for example.
In comparing McCain to Eisenhower:
With both there appears to be a willingness to use the military for peacekeeping measures and - if you take a position that the "War on Terror" is similar to the Truman and Eisenhower Doctrines that pushed for containment of Communism - you could infer that McCain would be willing to send U.S. troops to other countries if he felt it was necessary to combat terrorism (this would appear to be what McCain is putting forth publicly with Iraq).
That would make a statement as far as making "We have a strong military and we aren't afraid to use it if need be!" an element of a McCain foreign policy (which would be comparable to Eisenhower's) but unless he's elected there isn't any way of knowing if he'd actually put it into effect. Eisenhower didn't actually use the military in many foreign adventures while President. Of course, the major thrust of the Eisenhower Doctrine was to contain the Soviets after the Suez War and isolate Nassar in Egypt and that ultimately failed... I will point out however that the Eisnehower administration bullied the British and French into accepting a cease fire in the Suez War through the use of a U.N. Security Council resolution which would hardly appear to be the act of someone who you (appear to) consider to be quick to use military force. Eisenhower also got involved in some minor escalation of financial support to the anti-communist side in Vietnam (French-Indochina) but he fell well short of any major U.S. military involvement. That didn't happen until later administrations.
McCain's criticisms of Bush's Iraq policies have been on the "how we do it" side which would seem to put him in pretty much the same mindset that Eisenhower concerned himself with during his administration.
Overall, I would say that there are strong similarities in how the two view the military as an instrument of Foreign Policy and the role the U.S. might play in using force internationally. Both appear to use a mindset that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to use military force and factor that heavily into their thinking. Eisenhower was very concerned with anti-colonial sentiment (especially in the Middle East) as British and French influence was wanning in the region. Given the complaints of "U.S. Imperialism" during the Bush administration, McCain would be wise to express the same concern.
I have to ask why you find "The speeches McCain has been making on his latest tour are really scary."? Is it his plan to involve international bodies more in decision making that bothers you? His desire to expand the G-8? His public statements against continued support of Musharraf in Pakistan? It seems to me that these are all things that fall in line with what Democrats have been screaming for over the last 7 years and in the case of Musharraf, actually go farther than any announced plan I've seen from either Clinton or Obama.
