0
   

Willing to send his son

 
 
Reply Thu 15 Feb, 2007 08:34 am
Willing to send his son

He says it again and again, to his colleagues in the Senate, to journalists, to anyone who will listen: The United States needs more troops in Iraq.

His message could hurt his presidential campaign, since polls indicate two-thirds of Americans disagree with him. But John McCain insists he doesn't care about the political consequences. He says the only way to fix the mess in Iraq is a huge infusion of U.S. muscle.

For all the talk, there is one thing the Arizona senator doesn't discuss. His 18-year-old son Jimmy just became a Marine and is poised to go to Iraq. In effect, McCain is saying what few politicians are willing to say: Send my son, too.



For two centuries, the men of my family were raised to go to war as officers in America's armed services. It is a family history that, as a boy, often intimidated me, and, for a time, I struggled halfheartedly against its expectations. But when my own time at war arrived, I realized how fortunate I was to have been raised in such a family.

- McCain, in his 1999 memoir Faith of My Fathers



Jimmy McCain graduated from Marine boot camp in December. He could have opted for a safer job, but chose the infantry.

In that role, Pvt. McCain will be a rifleman on the front lines and will have a simple mission: to hunt and kill the enemy.

Jimmy is likely to be sent to Iraq this summer, probably to the Anbar province, considered one of the most dangerous regions of the country.

Publicly, McCain has said little about his son. He told Time magazine last summer that Jimmy was inspired to sign up because he had friends in the Marine Corps. The senator - the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee - said he was no different than any other military dad. "Like every parent who has a son or daughter serving that way, you will have great concern, but you'll also have great pride."

After talking with Time, McCain decided he did not want publicity about his son and tried unsuccessfully to get the magazine to kill the story. Since then, neither McCain nor his wife, Cindy, have commented on their son.

"I won't talk about my kids," the senator said.

Jimmy can be seen in several family photos hanging in McCain's office, but the most recent picture appears to be several years old. A cheery-looking Jimmy is wearing glasses and an Abercrombie T-shirt.

He follows a long tradition for the McCain family. His father, grandfather and great-grandfather graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. His older brother Jack is a student there.

But while the other McCains opted for the crisp white uniforms of the Navy, Jimmy chose front-line combat as a Marine.

Said Anthony Swofford, author of the Marine memoir Jarhead: "It sounds as though, in a pretty radical way, he is rejecting the polish and refinement of the officer corps to get his boots dirty and get himself bloody, down in the trenches."



As a boy and a young man, I may have pretended not to be affected by the family history, but my studied indifference was a transparent mask to those who knew me well. ... It is a formidable history, not easily escaped even today by descendants who might wish to pursue some interest outside the family business.

- Faith of My Fathers



The "family business," as McCain calls it, goes back generations.

William Alexander McCain fought in the Mississippi cavalry in the Civil War, as did his oldest son, Joseph Watt McCain. But Joseph wasn't keen on the battlefield, according to the senator's memoir: "In his first battle he passed out at the sight of blood and was mistakenly left for dead by his comrades."

Another of William McCain's sons, then a young teen-ager, lied about his age so he could join the Confederate army, but was not allowed to fight. A different branch of the senator's ancestors included soldiers who fought with George Washington in the Revolutionary War.

The senator's grandfather, John Sidney "Slew" McCain, was a legendary Navy officer described by author Robert Timberg as "a high-strung, irascible old sea dog." The senator's father, John S. "Jack" McCain Jr., was a four-star admiral who was the U.S. commander for the Pacific while his son was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.

Unlike most Washington politicians these days, McCain, 70, has actual experience with war. A Navy pilot, he was shot down over Hanoi and held - and often tortured - for more than five years. He refused offers to be released because he did not want to violate the military code of conduct or take advantage of his father's status.

Adm. McCain's actions during the Vietnam war - directing the bombing of Hanoi while his son was a POW - help to explain the senator's uncharacteristic silence about Jimmy.

In The Nightingale's Song, a biography of the senator and four other graduates of the Naval Academy, Timberg wrote that "those who knew Jack McCain during those years said he never brought up John's plight. When others did, he diplomatically changed the subject. But they also recall that he spent every Christmas for three years running with the Marines on the DMZ so he could be closer to his son."
* * *

McCain has been calling for more troops in Iraq since the summer of 2003, just a few months after the U.S. invaded.

In August 2003, he said the U.S. should send at least 17,000 additional troops and warned that "people in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry."

Today, McCain blames former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other military leaders for making strategic errors, allowing heavy-handed tactics and inflating expectations.

"It wasn't just not enough troops," McCain said in an interview with the St. Petersburg Times. "It was the firing of everybody in the (Iraqi) army, it was allowing the looting from the beginning, it was 'de-Baathification.' There was a failure to make a quick transition to an Iraqi government."

Lately, McCain has become the most vocal supporter of President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops. "We've got a new strategy and new leaders and finally a recognition that the previous strategy was failed," he said.

That not only puts the senator in the unusual position of defending his Republican rival from the 2000 presidential primaries, it could hurt McCain's 2008 campaign.

With polls showing strong opposition to the Bush plan, Democrats have dubbed it "the Bush-McCain escalation" and "the McCain doctrine." (The senator jokes that he is flattered. "Not everybody has a doctrine named after them.")

Pollster Dick Bennett said McCain is hurting his campaign.

"John McCain is being perceived as supporting an administration that can't get the job done," said Bennett, president of the American Research Group, a polling company in New Hampshire.

But others say McCain is so well known for being independent-minded that it won't damage his standing.

John Weaver, a senior adviser to the senator, said McCain "is doing what he always does and that's put the country's interest first. All of us are proud to work for someone who is not a poll-tested politician who bends with the wind."

Andy Smith, a pollster at the University of New Hampshire, said McCain's advantage "is that people think he has integrity. That allows him to do some things that other candidates can't get away with."



It was war, the great test of character, that made the prospect of joining my father's profession attractive. ... I hoped that I, too, would know days when I would learn that courage was finding the will to act despite the fear and chaos of battle.

- Faith of My Fathers



Last summer, McCain admitted he was apprehensive about Jimmy going to war.

"I'm obviously very proud of my son," he told Time, "but also understandably a little nervous."

Today, he says his support for a troop increase has a broad goal. "I'm doing what I hope is right for every family in America," he said.

Everett Alvarez, a POW with McCain and a longtime friend, says he knows what McCain will experience - because Alvarez's son is a Navy doctor serving with the Marines in Iraq. "It's anguish. It's holding your breath and hoping nothing happens to them."

Timberg, author of The Nightingale's Song, said the McCains understand the risks and rewards of military life.

"My sense," he said, "is that the McCain family looks on military service as a higher calling, a calling that transcends the need to have a job, to make money -a calling that gives you a sense that as you go through your life, you're going to be doing things that matter."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,323 • Replies: 96
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Feb, 2007 09:20 am
John McCain is the only politician who really understands HOW to fight a war.

If you ARE going to fight a war, you go in with eveerything you have or else don't go.

That has been his position and one I agree with.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Feb, 2007 10:23 am
It's too bad that your fellow Republicans will never vote this guy president, as he is arguably more qualified than any of the other Republican frontrunners by far

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Feb, 2007 10:41 am
A lot of us who previously held respect for McCain's independence and his willingness to speak out against some of the nuttier corners of the new conservative movement are pretty disappointed now as he kisses their bums so as to have a chance in the primaries. That prior independence and integrity are now entirely questionable. Though perhaps his closest confidantes have some good idea of how he would act as President, folks like me or folks on the religious right or folks in the party who hold loyalty to existing power structures as supremely important do not know how he will act if President.

He may yet end up taking the primaries though if it becomes more clear that he's the best chance against Hillary or Obama and if such pragmatism trumps those other concerns. It is a significant dilemma for the party and will be very interesting as it plays out.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 12:10 pm


0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 08:45 pm
The McCain's are career militarists, so what! He didn't send his son. His son got sent by the Pentagon Maybe Bush cabal wants a future McCain out of the way.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 08:47 pm
Why doesn't Bush send his daughters?

Then we can talk.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 09:10 pm
Interesting how McCain's speaking from his conscience is viewed by Blatham's ilk as Bush-butt-kissing irrespective of the fact that his insistence on more troops has been consistent from the get-go. His desire to "go Roman" makes sense from a Military perspective. Tough balancing act while trying to win the hearts and minds of your defeated foe, but who would argue that we wouldn't be in better shape had we sent sufficient troops to better control the aftermath? That is, in essence, what we're still trying to do and in that respect MORE=BETTER. Send 100 men to end a riot and they may be in trouble. Send 100,000 and the rioters will be. Half-ass measures can best be described as half-ass measures. Clearly, the United States didn't send enough troops in the first place; but that's no excuse to abandon 20,000,000 innocent people today. It's not their fault we screwed this up. We owe it to them to at least try to correct it. John McCain is a legitimate American Hero, and allegations to the contrary are worthy of censure.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 10:54 pm
It's not so much that McCain will send his sons, but isn't his son old enought to make his own decisions - or is he a control freak?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 10:57 pm
To be fair, cicerone, it looks like the decision was made by the son. They seem to be a militaristic family and are attracted to the uniform like moths to porchlights. So be it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 10:58 pm
Thanks, gus. One point for the "gipper."
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 11:50 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
It's not their fault we screwed this up. We owe it to them to at least try to correct it. John McCain is a legitimate American Hero, and allegations to the contrary are worthy of censure.


No, it's never "their" fault but they always have to pay the price for these brainless military screwups. Why doesn't the USA ever take responsibility for these major screwups. Millions die and Dr Mengele here still wants to perform more experiments.

John McCain is a brainless gorm, unable to form a cogent thought. He's a slimy political opportunist and we can all hope and pray that the people of Az recall him before he can do any more harm.

He would make a perfect republican candidate. You guys sure can pick 'em.

You're as big an idiot as McCain if you think a few more troops is going to make any difference. You lost this a long time ago. You guys sure know how to win the hearts and minds of the people. What percentage of Iraqis want the USA out; 65, 70, 80%? What percentage of Americans want the USA out? About the same?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:05 am
JTT, You spelled it out pretty clearly; Iraqis and Americans want our troops out. What more need be said?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:52 am
JTT, like most of your ilk you are very astute at assigning blame and pointing out failure; but where is your opinion on a solution? Take all the space you need and explain what you think should be done next... and how it will benefit the Iraqi people.

(or, infinitely more likely, just keep shouting at the rain without ever pondering a better solution)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 01:29 am
For those of you so blinded by hyper-polarity, that you think only a right-winger can recognize the inherent wrongness in abandoning Iraqis; take pause. This is a thinking position; not just a Republican position or a Bushie position as hyper-partisan idiots would have you believe. To make this easier to swallow, I offer a post by a well respected (by me for sure, and everyone I believe) poster who disagrees with my politics as vehemently as anyone. Click here.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:32 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
For those of you so blinded by hyper-polarity, that you think only a right-winger can recognize the inherent wrongness in abandoning Iraqis; take pause. This is a thinking position; not just a Republican position or a Bushie position as hyper-partisan idiots would have you believe. To make this easier to swallow, I offer a post by a well respected (by me for sure, and everyone I believe) poster who disagrees with my politics as vehemently as anyone. Click here.


I no longer share nimh's position on this point... see here http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=83525&start=30

Or, one can listen to Lt. Gen. William Odom, the former director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan and head of Army intelligence. The first link below is to an op ed in the WP written Feb 11. The second link is to a radio interview re that op ed done by Hugh Hewitt and posted on Townhall...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 06:03 am
Let me make an additional point or two.

We cannot, unless we wish to be made stupid through amnesia, ignore certain salient facts. There are a powerful group of individuals and associated organizations who were pushing for war with Iraq long before 9/11. That same element were, again, before 9/11, also pushing for war with Iran - an agenda they are still the primary proponents of today. As we all know, these folks achieved the power and position within this administration to bring their plans to some degree of fruition. And if we are perceptive in our reading, we'll notice that it is the same primary voices which are presently arguing that to leave Iraq means "defeat" (an absolutely unacceptable outcome, they say, for the consequences oto reduced American prestige - by which they mean the absolute power to bully as a hegemon) which will result in massive genocide, nuclear attacks on Israel, and suitcase bombs in Disneyland.

In a recent discussion with georgeob, he stated that he does not know why Bush and this administration went into Iraq. That admission from george pulled me up to a complete stop and it bears thinking about.

George is not a stupid man. Nor is he uneducated in matters of history and the military. Nor is he unconnected to the levers of power. I have not sat down and had discussions with Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. George, on the other hand, has. And yet, he doesn't understand America's decision to move into Iraq.

Consider whether he would say that about the fight against Germany and Japan. Or against Stalin. Or even in Vietnam. He wouldn't, of course, because the reasons, wise and prudent or not, were transparent.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 06:49 am
blatham wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
For those of you so blinded by hyper-polarity, that you think only a right-winger can recognize the inherent wrongness in abandoning Iraqis; take pause. This is a thinking position; not just a Republican position or a Bushie position as hyper-partisan idiots would have you believe. To make this easier to swallow, I offer a post by a well respected (by me for sure, and everyone I believe) poster who disagrees with my politics as vehemently as anyone. Click here.


I no longer share nimh's position on this point... see here http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=83525&start=30
In other words, you believe there is no hope in even maintaining the current level of violence in Iraq, believe no plan can change the inevitable graduation to a killing field type situation, think the Iraqis will be better off in a full-blown civil war... and don't think that will encourage more justified hatred towards the U.S.? Have you lost your mind?

blatham wrote:
Morally, what I think the Dems ought to do (and they ought to be clear and forthright about it) is to first extricate the entire mid-east mission from the ideology presently under-pinning it. Then, set to three or four specific goals: 1) resolution of the Palestinian issue,
Gee, I wonder why no one's ever thought of that? Any idea how you're going to give the Palestinians their land back without displacing Israel? Laughing Seriously, do you think that even if Israel returned to 1967 Borders, the Palestinians would be satisfied? Have you seen a Palestinian map of the future? I'm not saying it can't be done... though I generally feel alone in believing it can be. Personally; I think it will eventually require a single State that respects both cultures equally, governed by some form of popular sovereignty, and rigorously enforced by sanction if necessary by a substantial percentage of the country's trading partners. If everything goes well; they should see a relative peace in about the same amount of time it took Bigots to stop subjugating Blacks after Lincoln freed the slaves. They have a long row to hoe. What's your plan?

blatham wrote:
2) effective and serious descrimination in rhetoric and admiinistrative structures between Iraq/Afghanistan and the threats from fundamentalist Islam,
Of course. If we pretend they don't wish to kill us, perhaps they'll stop wishing to kill us. Pity this thought is a direct contradiction of your next.
blatham wrote:
3) as ugly as this is/seems, attention to maintenance of the flow of oil as a simple matter of world economies (with smart forward-looking alternative energy policies pushed with an energy comparable to Kennedy's drive to space),
I like the alternative energy drive; but basically what you're saying is we return to the oil-maintenance scheme that drove 15 Saudis onto airplanes with the express purpose of killing us. Surely, you of all people know that our "attention to maintenance of the flow of oil as a simple matter of world economies" is what drove the victims of Our Sons of a bitches (click here) to hate us in the first place. Two steps backwards is not progress. And being responsible first for the Iraqi War and then for a massive genocide in it's wake is not likely to win friends and influence people. Do you have some false memory of the region's opinion after the last Gulf War and subsequent abandonment?

blatham wrote:
4) forget any other considerations in Iraq other than minimizing suffering in the short and finally long terms. That is, if some general or Bill Kristol yells about emasculation of the military, offer to do whatever they wish so long as they wear a pink crinolin dress in public for the following year...to see if they are willing to share in the sacrifice. Likewise, any lobbyists from Northrupp.
Gee, that's really cute. But it amounts to turning the blind eye while a few million innocents are slaughtered in genocide, if not a greater regional conflict. I'll ask again; have you lost your mind?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 06:56 am
I tend to agree PNAC strategy had a great deal to do with our invasion of Iraq. The key differences between us on that are:
A. I don't think the PNAC is entirely wrong.
B. I recognize that you can't put the **** back in the donkey.

We are where we are, it is what it is, and why is less important than figuring out what to do next. Playing the blame game and voicing "I told you so" is rather unproductive. Unless someone invents a time machine, we'd better shelve that discussion for another day and concentrate on what to do from here on out.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:46 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:

B. I recognize that you can't put the **** back in the donkey.


As evidenced by your stream of postings, O'Bill.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Willing to send his son
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/02/2024 at 03:36:29