Mitt MySpace-inlägg från 2006 om att McCain måste bli USA:s president 2008

Mitt MySpace inlägg på Republikanernas forum år 2006:
-----------------------------------------------------

Macleod wrote:

Posted: Dec 6, 2006 3:29 AM
We can all say what we want about the midterm election. But it stands clear that the american people are dissatisfied by the events in Iraq the Bush administrations iraqi policies.

The situation in Iraq is americas present biggest foreign policy problem. Some days ago during the Senate hearings Bushs newly appointed Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that "we are not winning in Iraq". While Bush himself said the opposite.

I support President Bush more than most people. But there are some problems with Bushs world view: President Bush is a idealist. Being an idealist is a great thing. The belief in idealism is what makes America different from Europe (our last idealists were Churchill and Hitler). And among Americas presidents I would say that president Bush is one of the greatest idealists among american presidents during the 20th/21th century(so far) - together with Ronald Reagan and perhaps Franklin D Roosevelt.

Bushs idealism is also what brought him to office in 2000 as well as 2004- unlike Bill Clinton (and even more so, unlike Al Gore) - Bush brought new visions to the White House. He talked about confronting evil, establish democracies around the world and make the world a more free and better place for everyone. Bush also has the personality and the charisma to express these things in just the right way. In contrast to Al Gores boring fall-asleep way of expressing himself, and John Kerrys cliché- impersonal rethoric.

But idealism and idealists always confront a problem - a problem they, because of their own idealism not always are able to see: that is (1. the fact that there actually are no perfect ideals, and no golden concept which can always be used to solve your problems. and (2. that idealism in politics requires EVERYONE ELSE to be just as idealistic if the idealist vision shall unfold.

President Bush has been an idealist when talking about Iraq. During 2003 he declared that the mission was "accomplished" when the Baathregime was thrown out of power. Yet, as we now know - the war had just begun. It was for –that- reason the realist, not idealist - James Baker and Bush 41 did not invade Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War - since the realist school considered that it would not create peace but create chaos among the different iraqi ehtnic groups who stayed in peace only because of Saddam Husseins brutal power of oppression (just the way Tito ones ruled the former Yugoslavia - when his dictatorship fell the nation was thrown into chaos and the bloodiest war on european soil since world war 2).

Looking back that is what has happened in Iraq – and even President Bush has admitted that they did not expect what was to come after Saddam Hussein had lost his power: the coalition (who day after is decreasing – with even the British troops slowly leaving) in Iraq are not able to quench the terrorists. Yes, it might be true that Iraqis primeminister Al-Malaki is tying their hands. But if he allowed the American troops to do everything it would take to quench the insurgency then HE would lose his power - and the fragile Iraqi democracy for whom the Americans are fighting would be put into pieces. Therefore there are at the moment no other options than following the same path as before. But the same “path” is not good enough. Which is one thing the last mid-term election stated.

In the long run America would probably be able to win the war; but to a price too high for most Americans to pay. Since most Americans do not share Bushs idealism they want to bring their troops home as soon as possible and not stay in a war they cant win. So what are the options?
Bush has consistently during his presidency urged the nation to “stay the course”. To keep doing what they are doing to see the long-time success after blood and tears which in the future will create the peace everyone long for and bring the troops home “with the honor they have deserved”. Those are words by an idealist. But as stated, idealism never works unless everyone shares those ideals – and unless everyone are ready to pay the price required for establishing those idealistic visions.

In contrast to Bushs idealism the left wing Democrats say “get out as soon as possible”. They are not willing to spend money, power and American lives on a war without end; almost all Democrat presidential candidates for 2008 have this theme in common. Some can be more extreme than others – but all have in common that the war by now is a mistake and a mistake the Americans should withdraw from as soon as possible.

The problem though is that Bush as well as these Democrats have no solution in sight: Bush might be an idealist, and maybe his idealism would have worked in Iraq – if the American people shared the will to see thousand more Americans die in the Iraqi desert for someone elses nation (in this case the anti-israeli Islamic republic of Iraq). But they don’t. And therefore Bushs strategy wont work either.

The Democrat strategy might end the war. Or atleast end Americas involvement in the war. But it would not solve the fundamental problem. And it would not make America safer (on the contrary it would make America and the whole middle east more unsecure than during Saddam Husseins time). An American withdrawal would probably create a “great Iran” – where the Shiite Iran and the Shiite dominated Iraq join hands against the whole western world (and ofcourse against their sunni foes, not to mention Israel…). That strategy would end in chaos.

So what is the solution?

The only top-ranking US politician, who actually wants to see the war won, and who actually -has a strategy- how to win it, is Senator John McCain. Bush has steadfastly refused to send more troops to Iraq, saying that “the generals on the ground have not asked for more troops”. This is true, to some extent, but only half of the truth. The lack of US/coalition troops in Iraq are obvious – forcing marines to be moved from one secured area in Iraq to fight in an operation in another part of the country (leaving the just secured area undefended). Senator McCain has therefore consistently (and in a time where most people calls for withdrawal) stated that there must be more troops in Iraq to win this war.

I agree with him: there are two problems in present day Iraq. One is the military/police problem – which makes the military unable to quench the different terrorists groups (shia, sunni, baathists, al qaida). And secondly the US handed over Iraqi to the Iraqis too early, and before the job was done. It is not the American administration who have tied the hands of the troops operations – it is the Iraqi government (not because they disagree with the Americans but because it would be political suicide for a government ruled by the majority people of iraq to allow foreign forces to attack their own minority villages – and it would without hesitation lead to a full scale civil war among the different groups).

For that reason Iraq is not able to create peace by themselves. It must be, and should have been, forced upon them from without. Sending more troops to Iraq, and giving the troops the freedom necessary to do whatever it takes to win the war – is a winning strategy. But it requires a president willing to (1. send more troops and (2. willing to stand up against the Iraqi government and make it clear that Americas most important goal at the moment is to create stability not to uphold a fragile Iraqi government.

Bush has never had this strategy: in contrast he has kept holding primeminister Malikis hand, while its been obvious that Malikis decisions have not been popular among the American soldiers. Yes, Maliki is a sign of some extent of success in Iraq. He is a democratic elected prime minister – and therefore Bush can use him as Americas “little bitch”, and as a proof of how America has succeeded brining democracy to Iraq. But democracy has not in this case been the same thing as stability or peace – and always when creating a nation stability and peace is what most come first; then democracy can come. This fact is proven in South Korea, and to some extent even in Japan.

The US created democracy in Iraq before they created stability and peace. And President Bush is the one most responsible for that - since his own idealistic belief in “the power of freedom”, made him think that “free peoples don’t fight”. Unfortunately history has showed that not to be the case. President Bush is a great president, and I love him. Yet, it is obvious that he will not change his fundamental cornerstones in the Iraqi issue: he will not change his support for the Maliki government, nor will he support the troops before he supports the Iraqi government. And that is understandable, since it would be sort of to cut his own hand. But that is exactly what has to be done;

America must say to the Iraqis; we gave you freedom (a little bit too early) but you did not bring the peace or the stability we wanted you to bring. Therefore we must create this stability by sending more foreign troops to Iraq and do whatever it takes to once and for all destroy the insurgency, and secure the borders. Then, when that is done the Iraqi people can live in peace as well as freedom.

The war can be won militarily – but to win it politically it must be won fast. This is only possible by sending more troops to Iraq. And the only with this ambition is Senator John McCain. When most people, even Republicans abandon Bush since they view him as someone who stayed too long in Iraq - John McCain on the contrary says: yes, we´ve been there too long, so lets end this war now – by WINNING IT.

The Iraqi- question is and will be Americas most important problem during the coming years. Leaving Iraq is no option – because if the US leaves Iraq in chaos and the islamistic pro iranian forces of Iraq gets into power one thing is sure: America will be back again.

Therefore the war must be won, and it must be won fast: and the only one with the experience (political as well as military experience) to accomplish this is John McCain.

Please make him president in 2008.

-----------------------------------
Uppföljningsinlägg:

Macleod wrote:

Posted: Dec 6, 2006 7:30 AM
I like McCain because he understands Americas -most important issue- very well. At the moment the most important issue is the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Tax cuts, "legislating christian morale", a strive for limited government and so on are all important issues - but if the war on terror is not won those issues will soon mean nothing.

America stands on the brink to a new time: a time where american hegomonical power is at stake. The war in Iraq, if not handled well might as well become the end of Americas world supremacy. After the Vietnam war the United States lost its economic supremacy. Todays US economy is still strong, but its strenght lies in its past, not in its future - unlike China or for that instance the European Monetary Fund who still have far, far to go until it will reach its greatest time.

The United States still have the worlds most advanced military power - but a loss in Iraq will probably change that too, and will - just like Vietnam make the United States less able and less willing to take action when necissary; american military supremacy will be a thing of the past - while Europe might very well one day deside to gain also a unified military power.

No matter what the Iraq war was all about in its beginning - it is at this moment all about Americas future role as a world leader. Therefore the war in Iraq is, and should be a top priority for the american people and for whoever gets elected president in 2008. John McCain is a man who understands that this is the most important question of all (Bush understands this too, but he cant run again). John McCain has also been around longer than most - he has seen what the different wars the US has fought around the world has changed the direction of the nation. Therefore he knows what is at stake better than most - and unlike most politicians McCain actually has been in the military as a soldier as well as an officer. His strategy for Iraq is not perfect (in this situation there is no golde rule sollution, as I stated earlier) - buts the best strategy anyone yet has come up with. Its not a "Bush-stay-the-slow-course-Cause we will win in a distant future at the end of the tunnel when Gods light breks through" policy, and it is not a Democrat "cut and run" strategy. McCains path through this situation is uniqe. And because of that I cant imagine a better person being the next President than John McCain. McCain would even be better than if Bush could have run a 3rd term - since Bush is tied up by his own policies. McCain is not - and if he were president everyone would see that.

--------------

Nästa uppföljningsinlägg:

Macleod wrote:

It must also be said, that even if John McCain will get strong competition in the Republican primary election - I think he is the one with best chances in the general election. The american people will elect a moderate candidate. Take Hillary Clinton for instance - she could and will easily win the Democratic primary - but in the general election she is still labeled as a "left wing extermist", who wont have it very easy to win the moderate votes unless she actually starts changing and showing herself to be a moderate.

John McCain is the only opponent "mainstream americans" trusts. They for sure wouldnt elect Bush again. And they wont elect an idealist in the next election. They will elect someone who knows the reality, what things on the ground is all about - and someone who then will do the best of the situation. I dont think any GOP candidate would have as good chances in the general election than John McCain. A full blown conservative or neocon, wont win. Even if they win the Rep. primary they wont win the general election. The next american president - Democrat or Republican will be a moderate. May it be John McCain, not Joe Liberman.

--------------------------------------