When Senator John McCain was campaigning in the Sunshine State,
he repeated several times the main reason Floridians should vote
for him. "There's going to be other wars," he warned, and he was
the man for this dangerous moment.
One would assume a statement like that would pique the interest
of most citizens. This, evidently, was not the case among his
opponents, newsmen, or anyone involved in the GOP primary.
No one really put it to him, "Senator McCain, what 'other wars'
are you talking about?"
Note the plural: It means that the Arizona senator has in mind
something beyond a possible action against Iran, which the
president and several candidates have mulled from time to time. Or
does it mean something else?
Maybe he is using "other wars" as shorthand for ad hoc strikes
against terrorists camps or concentrations of bad guys around the
world. Or maybe not.
Assuming the senator was thinking primarily of the challenge of
Islamic jihadism, the phrase might indicate other wars being waged
against -- fill in the blank -- Syria, Pakistan, Sudan, or other
countries yet unnamed.
We simply don't know, which is troubling. Presidential
campaigns, especially Republican primary campaigns, should fully
explore the dead serious issues facing the nation. And war and
peace rank right up at there at the top of that list.
Yet there has been barely a ripple, not even the mildest
curiosity within the ranks of the Republican Party as to the
meaning of Senator McCain's Delphic pronouncement of more wars to
come.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT the majority of Republican primary voters simply
assume "other wars" are in our future and find Senator McCain's
statements to be unexceptional. I find that hard to believe, but,
if true, it would be unfortunate for several reasons.
First, assuming more wars are in our future, wouldn't it be
prudent to fully discuss the ends and means of such undertakings,
which never turn out quite as planned?
What are the inevitable and difficult trade-offs necessary to
carry out such expeditions? The nation is actively engaged in two
wars right now, neither of which is close to a tidy resolution.
The second reason for airing the question of future wars against
whomever Senator McCain has in mind is this: We should learn from
the mistakes and the successes of the not-so-distant past.
What would we do differently? What might we have not done at
all? What previous efforts would we emulate? And does strategic
success flow from tactical success, if what we want to do is win
over Muslim and Arab cultures?
Remember, in Vietnam, the U.S. won every major battle with the
Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese, but lost the war for reasons
unrelated to battlefield effectiveness.
Finally, there's the partisan reason. Republican candidates
should talk through this question now because Democrats will most
certainly raise this issue in the general election.
Senator McCain, if he is the presumptive leader in the primary
race, would benefit from addressing the question now, in a
relatively friendly venue, rather than later, in a full-blown
general election campaign.
Straight talk now would ensure an honest and forthright
consideration of the grave consequences of waging other future
wars, in terms of security, blood, and treasure.
If Senator McCain makes the case effectively, he will strengthen
his hand if he wins the White House. If he doesn't, well, we must
all take our chances.
These are simply the reflections of a father of two Army wives
whose husbands are heading off to Iraq this year, albeit in
non-combatant roles, leaving them and their children behind.
This war has come home, so to speak, and I would sure like to
know what other wars are being contemplated by the senator from
Arizona.
topics:
Trade, John McCain, Islam, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, NATO
