McCain’s Prescription for Fighting the War against ‘Islamic Extremism’ is a recipe for Defeat, Not Victory
by Joseph BH McMillan | View comments |
Print This Post
When you refuse to acknowledge the enemy for fear of offending people, by definition, you cannot know whether you are triumphing over the enemy.
McCain has a well-oiled "machine" to silence his fellow Vietnam POW’s, and it will no doubt save him from the “Swift Boating” that helped sink John Kerry. But silencing your critics is not a substitute for an effective and workable war strategy.
While McCain pontificates about his credentials as a "war hero," which, he claims, uniquely equip him to deal with the threats posed by "Islamic Extremism," I find that I am being subjected daily to the humiliations of having to sacrifice my freedom to accommodate his inability (and the inability of most of our politicians) to even identify the enemy.
Let me give a recent personal example before I demonstrate how McCain plans to hand our enemies a victory on a platter.
In my last, and it will be my last, flight from Paris to DC, I wondered if I had caught the wrong flight. I feared that I may have boarded a flight to Mecca for the Hajj. But the in-flight monitor definitely showed a projection for the United States.
I arrived at the terminal in Paris 5 hours early to ensure I got my aisle seat. But when I got to my seat, a Muslim man was sitting in it. He only vacated it when I made clear to him that his options were move, or be moved.
But he didn’t move to his seat; instead he called a stewardess. She then asked me to move to another part of the aircraft so that this man’s veil-clad wife could sit in my seat. When I pointed out that there was an empty seat between us, I was told that Muslim men wouldn’t allow their wives to sit next to someone like me – a non-believer. Even putting him between his wife and me was not acceptable – I was told to move and “not cause trouble!”
Now just imagine if I had called a stewardess to tell her that I objected to a Muslim man sitting even one seat away from my wife because I know the contempt Muslim men have for Western women??
I moved. But I only ended up next to another Muslim, this time reading from his Koran – ostentatiously.
Immediately after take-off, this man starting fiddling with his shoes under one of those blankets they provide on long-distance flights. This carried on for a full ten minutes. So I was left in the unenviable position of assaulting this jerk, and thus opening myself up to a legal action, or hoping that he was not about to blow me and the aircraft to smithereens. If my family had been on board I’d likely have killed him. But I took the calculated risk that if he does blow the aircraft to bits, at least my children will keep what I have worked to provide for them. If I assaulted him I could well see everything I have worked for be handed to him on a plate by some Liberal Fundamentalist judge who would decide that I had committed a "hate crime."
Yet these are the calculations most of have to make on a daily basis. Here in Spain, in a little village called Alameda, in Andalucia, the same thing happened. Muslim illegal immigrants who had harassed local women were driven out of the town by locals fed-up with their behavior (the locals set fire to their cars and were about to burn down their state-allocated houses). The local youths were prosecuted – not the Muslims who had provoked the whole thing in the first place – and faced no legal action whatsoever.
These are not isolated incidents; it’s just that most people in the West are terrified even to voice their concerns. When they do, they talk in whispers. Because they are terrified of the backlash! I should restate that – most of us in the West are terrified to exercise our freedom to voice our disdain of an ugly and vicious ideology because it has been ordained from on high that voicing such sentiments would constitute a breach of the rights of those who treat us with contempt.
But is McCain proposing anything that may reverse these humiliations? Of course not! He is simply incapable of recognizing that we are fighting Islam, in our own countries, and in the rest of the world. Instead, he wants to sacrifice more American lives to sustain and promote the Islamic counties we have already established in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like Bush, he says we are fighting them "over there" so we don’t have to fight them "over here." Well, I have news for McCain. If what I experience over here is any indication of the "success" of the mission, then we have already lost. As my experience flying from Paris to Washington demonstrates, I already have to prostrate myself before the greater sensitivities on Islamic ideology. And as the townsfolk in Alameda discovered, fighting back is not an option.
But let’s just examine for a minute McCain’s "strategy." He claims, again like Bush, that the central battleground of the War on Terror is Iraq and Afghanistan. Both, however, acknowledge that Al Qaeda is regrouping, and has safe-haven in Pakistan, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Both again cite statements from the great bin Laden himself to justify this assessment. It seems not to have occurred to either that perhaps our entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan is precisely what bin Laden wants. Of course, they cite "private" communications from bin Laden to operatives in Iraq to support their assessment.
That betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the enemy. The logic seems to be that since these communications reveal bin Laden’s personal assessment, they must be true. It clearly hasn’t occurred to these great leaders that bin Laden wants his own followers to believe that these wars are fundamental to their cause because it suits him. But why would it suit bin Laden?
Well, we have already conceded Islamic States in the countries we have ‘liberated’ – Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a victory for Islam. They also have a safe-haven in Pakistan (and I suspect in many other Islamic countries, and indeed in the West) from where they can continue pretty much as before. Of course, now and then we take out one of their top operatives, but to no effect on the war.
So why embroil themselves in these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, it certainly isn’t to gain a safe-haven; they have plenty of them, even within the West. So why? It’s because it is where they intend, and are succeeding, in sapping our strength – mentally, physically, and financially.
For them, the longer we stay, the more troops we send, and the more Aid we provide, the more we are weakened. Already in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has sunk some $600 billion and counting (CRS Report to Congress November 9. 2007). That does not include development aid.
Neither does that account for the psychological effect of fighting a war that sees no enemy.
In the West in general, and America in particular, the people have become weary of the sacrifice, especially with the slow-down in the economy, and the prospect even of a recession. Any presidential candidate who asserts that we will continue regardless is simply reckless, and contemptuous of the People he supposedly represents. I expect that the People know, instinctively, that there is something fundamentally amiss here.
And what is amiss is military acumen – and vision. McCain seems to have this naïve belief that success in Iraq and Afghanistan will spell "victory" in the War on Terror. I am not surprised by this stupidity since he refuses to even acknowledge our enemy. When you refuse to acknowledge the enemy for fear of offending people, by definition, you cannot know whether you are triumphing over the enemy.
McCain reminds me of those pompous World War I generals who saw war in the confines of a few hundred yards of territory, and muddy trenches. For them, to "win" a few yards was in itself some sort of victory. They were simply incapable of seeing anything resembling a big picture. To them, retreating for a time to preserve morale and resources was in itself defeat. And so they continued with their insanity until everyone became weary with the whole sorry business. And that, in turn, paved the way for the greater catastrophe of World War II.
But in the case of our Islamic enemies, the one thing we can be sure of is that they will never weary of their cause, because for them their cause is God’s cause. There will be no amnesty signed in some comfortable train.
There will only be our defeat, and their victory.
And at the moment we are playing their game. They do not need to fight any more for Islam – we have already conceded that in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the Archbishop of Canterbury is even calling for Sharia Law to be recognized in Britain). We are simply giving them the opportunity to deplete our resolve and resources. Yet, the likes of McCain think that playing to their tune is somehow a strategy for victory.
When the British were faced with Dunkirk, they did not pour in troops to fight the Nazis in Europe so they wouldn’t have to fight them at home. No, even before Churchill, they realized that holding out at Dunkirk would mean fighting for no other reason than fighting – and that is not how wars are won. They "retreated" to preserve their resources to fight the big fight. Of course, their morale took a beating, but nothing like the beating it would have taken had they made a stand to "win."
And when Churchill did finally come in from the cold to take control, he did not play nice to our enemies. Germany had to be crushed – not the "bad," or the "moderately bad" Germans, but all the Germans. They had to be shown that their ideology which had brought catastrophe on civilization would not be tolerated, and would be destroyed – once and for all. No allowance could be made for the off-chance that many Germans may not share Hitler’s radical or extremist agenda. He recognized that the whole ideology was destructive to civilization, and whatever the cost, must be eliminated.
Is McCain a man in that mould? Only if you are deaf, dumb and blind!
By concentrating our resources on the lost causes of Iraq and Afghanistan, we play into the hands of our enemies, and we give them the air to foment fear even at home.
They decide when to engage in battle, and when to lie low. We simply react. When we think we are "winning," our hopes are dashed. We withdraw, then we reinforce. In short, we are all over the map.
McCain can’t seem to comprehend that retreating when a battle has no real tactical worth is not defeat, it can be and usually is, avoiding defeat.
And when McCain is prepared to sacrifice our own innocent men, women and children for fear of breaching some naïve Convention designed by a bunch of arm-chair warriors, then he is simply not fit to baby-sit my children, never mind lead the free world.
Flying combat missions in Vietnam, being awarded a medal per hour, and spilling the beans to a Cuban journalist, are not qualifications for the presidency. I know many war heroes who put McCain to shame, and, I would say, are shamed by McCain.
Yet, the most tragic thing about McCain is that he has stuck to his ridiculous convictions even while his own son was (and perhaps still is) serving in Iraq. And although I have no doubt that McCain’s son will serve with the dedication and honor that all Marines serve their country, that is simply not enough for me to entrust the pompous little man with the future of mankind.
Getting bogged-down in the "trenches" of Iraq and Afghanistan is a recipe for disaster, not victory. And although being a "maverick" may be an endearing quality when it does not matter, in the case of war it is nothing less than catastrophic. Because McCain will carry on regardless of the mess he makes, and irrespective of the counsel he receives – because he genuinely appears to believe that he can never be wrong.
jbhmcmillan@escapingbooks.com
http://www.freedomvrights.com
Read more articles by Joseph BH McMillan
[…] February 13, 2008 at 9:19 am (Law/Politics) The entire article is worth reading, but the last several paragraphs of "McCain's Prescription for Fighting the War against 'Islamic Extremism' is a recipe for Defeat, Not Victory" by Joseph BH McMillan, is deserving of a gold star: McCain can’t seem to comprehend that retreating when a battle has no real tactical worth is not defeat, it can be and usually is, avoiding defeat. […]
Pingback by McCain is Recipe for Defeat (in more ways than one) « Jama Oliver | February 13, 2008
Mr. McMillan needs to cut back on the steroids. I am not sure what he is suggesting here. Does he want the United States to declare all out unconditional war on one billion people dispersed over 60 countries? Should we use the Hiroshima response?
Mr. McMillan makes the same basic mistake that most people do in looking at war. The average person walking the streets no matter his religion, nationality, race or gender does not want war. We are winning the war in Iraq because the Iraqi citizenry became fed up with the wanton and senseless carnage. This is not a conflict between religions it is a conflict between people who want absolute rule over a people it is freedom versus tyranny.
As far as the sob story about having to give up his assigned seat on a flight I would have refused. I would have looked at the flight attendant and told her so that she had no doubt of the outcome to not fear a legal action from the Muslim but to fear it from me. Then just sit and wait for the outcome.
Comment by jfking | February 13, 2008
McCain has been far from my ideal choice for president. I am more into Mike Huckabee.
McCain is the picture perfect representation of what replublican America has voted on in the past. Instead of voting for a "War Hero", I would rather see someone that is a domestic hero. One that believes a best offence is a good defense.
We need someone who is not affraid to take his seat back from an islamic hater of the western world. One that will plague the left-winged institutions that we call schools, with as much information on conservative view points as the left has delt. Someone not afraid to anger illegal immigrants by shipping them home and closing the doors behind them. Finally someone who will not allow American Companies which moved across our borders for cheep labor- to sell their products in the states. Lets do the economy the old fashion way, as we do at home. Sit with a calander, a book of checks, and pay our bills off and tear up the credit cards. Lastly, someone who isnt afraid to begin what we finished in the middle-east, if we cant find them lets go ahead and level everywhere we think they are.
Comment by scott45133 | February 13, 2008
By starting with an attack on McCain and suggesting that he is not a "war hero" you lost me.
Best,
JKL
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4xtIOO6N-Oc
Comment by jamesklambert | February 13, 2008
Mr. McMillan,
Your story of the oppression you suffered is amazingly touching. How many million dead Moslems will be sufficient to help you get over it?
Comment by freelunch | February 13, 2008
How does one "ostentatiously" read a book?
Comment by Katzen | February 13, 2008
I do believe that time will support your thoughts. Many times in history we have seen the same thing. Looks like we are about to repeat again the mistakes of the past.
There is a real good book called The Forth Turning about generational cycles. It seems we repeat things on 80 to 90 year cycles. So 1914 plus 85 years is places us at 1999. Just about the start of this current mess. Then using 1938 as the start of the major conflict we get 2023 which is about the time we will figure out we screwed up as some of cities get vaporized. Someone will win this war and someone will lose. The winner will be the one who has no problem crushing the enemy.
Let me ask, if it came down to your family or one billion people who wanted to kill you, who would you choose?
If it takes more than one nanosecond to come up with an answer to wipe out the one billion then we have lost.
Comment by fbaginski | February 13, 2008
I would just like to thank all those who have taken the time to read and Comment on this and previous articles – both the generous, and the not so generous.
I would sincerely like to respond to all Comments, but alas time and other commitments do not permit at present, so please accept my apologies.
I should like to mention one thing though. We use many of the Articles and Comments on the IC as an educational supplement for our children – to assess how arguments ought to be constructed and debated. They have found this instructive, and at times entertaining. But best of all, it has inspired them to set up their own forum for young people. They are constructing a website called The Young Mind – http://www.TheYoungMind.com
It will be for young people up to the age of 18 (pre-College/University).
Their objective is to give a forum for young people to practice and refine their writing and debating skills. Essays on all topics will be encouraged, ranging from politics and religion, through travel and food, to aliens and movies. They are also planning a forum for young people and adults to exchange ideas about educational resources, especially for homeschoolers.
They want the forum to attract young people from across the globe so that people of different cultures, religions, and origins can exchange ideas and interests.
They also plan a section for young people to post their movies.
Although the forum will be directed at young people, from what I have been permitted to see so far, I think it will be of interest to adults as well.
My arm has been twisted to provide a quarterly prize for the best essay on a selected topic. The initial prize money will be $100.00.
There will also be a section on Math, with particular emphasis on techniques to solve practical problems.
I hope that those of you with young children will keep an eye out for the site and encourage your children to submit essays and participate in the debates.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring this to your attention.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 14, 2008
First of all lets dispel the notion that McCain is a war hero. This knucklehead destroyed 5 jet aircraft belonging to the USA. One more and he would be an ACE—for the enemy. Now lets get to real war heroes who aspired to the presidency. Ike comes to mind. He ran the Allied campaign to liberate the continent of Europe from the Axis. Gen MacArthur had presidential notions, he was highly instrumental in the defeat of Japan and North Korea. JFK saved lives while Captaining a PT in the Pacific. Theodore Roosevelt organized and helped command the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, the Rough Riders, during the Spanish-American War. What you got with McCain is a stint in a POW camp as a direct result in getting himself shot down. In the backdrop of the foregoing heroic military accomplishments, this is hardly the stuff of heros. However his biggest non-qualifer for the presidency is the glaring and total lack of executive ability; combined with the arrogance of not being the least bit trainable on the job. If elected he will make a bigger mess of government than it already is. The truth of the matter is that the nation has to hit abslote rock bottom with the Dems in charge, to turn it around. McCain does serve this great purpose, other than if he is a sacrificial candidate in the mold of a Bob Dole; a war hero.
Comment by weeedley | February 14, 2008
"But in the case of our Islamic enemies, the one thing we can be sure of is that they will never weary of their cause, because for them their cause is God’s cause."
Joseph BH McMillan:
And you help them every time you refer to Allah as "God". They are not — repeat, NOT — the same. The sooner we all realize this, the sooner we can identify our enemy.
Other than that, I am inclined to agree with you, but you made no recommendations on what we should do.
Comment by sedonaman | February 14, 2008
I said all this about the war at least 3 years ago.
There are two reasons at least, Joseph BH McMillan is right. McCain is no more hero than any other man who served in Vietnam or served in the Hanoi Hilton because his govt. failed him and his family due to political concerns instead of winning a war. Right now our so called conservative arm chair warriors are falling for the Bush co. line that if they don't support the war somehow that will translate into loss for the troops. Newsflash jacka$$e$; it matters not one wit if you support us or not. Most troops could care less if you support the war. Why? Because we will do the mission as assigned by the el presidente and his generales no matter what. Good strategy and bad strategy it makes no difference to us if we win or lose in one sense. Because its not up to us. Do any of you war chair half wits realize that? It is not up to us whether we win or lose. Its up to the President and his minions and selected generales who have all failed miserably so far in this effort.
Here's why; no UBL or Zawahiri, Pakistan in worse shape than Iraq ever was (with confirmed nukes no less), Less and less effort available for the OEF campaign due to NATO and Iraq falling apart. The OIF campaign is a dead horse and the GOP should get off it. Promising a 100 years will do absolutely nothing but lose the election plus lose us even more lives for absolutely nothing to gain. Even the economic gains would be startling
In the US military machine, we have the capability to win against any other war machine set before us given the proper strategy. But in this little escapade we have a PC strategy of appeasing Islam while trying to dance our way to infinite justice in some court of world opinion. It simply will not work. The writer is right. Until we realize that islam is the enemy and the average muslim in all her or his inbred wisdom will never embrace our ideals on a large enough scale to matter one wit, we are doomed to bog down in Iraq and probably afghanistan forever and ever if you choose to support this debacle. Face it GOPers, you chose a losing horse in supporting this war with its current strategy. Do you realize that right now Petraus is already scaling down the drawdown and planning to re-re-increase the troop levels this coming summer? Why? Because the PC surge of putting a GI on every street corner in one place only worked for a short while. the savages simply went out west or up north to kill and take over. The tribal leaders we once shunned and now bribe with your tax dollars are already starting to weigh the options on who will last longest. And we simply cannot stay a 100 years no matter what McCain says. Besides he won't be in power to promote that policy anyways. Killing a number of number 3s and 4s did nothing to solve the problem. Like Joseph wrote, FDR didn't just go after Hitler and call it good, he went after the root cause of Nazism which =Islam for those of you too slow to understand and had us and our allies annihilate it. Destroy it. He didn't compliment it, he didn't make allowences for it, he didn't give them air time or funding. He destroyed the enemies land, their war machine and their core driving beliefs. WE SHOULD DO SO NOW BEFORE ITS TOO LATE. OTHERWISE WE SIMPLY TRADED 24000 PLUS OF OUR FINEST FOR 3000 USELESS NEW YORKERS….
Comment by Dean | February 14, 2008
McCain is far from my first choice as the ideal nominee. But to attack his service in the military as a reason for opposing him does nothing to add to the discussion, and only calls into question the motives and intentions of those raising the issue. If McCain should be condemned for 'getting himself shot down' over North Vietnam and thus 'losing an airplane', I can only imagine the condemnation that accompanies someone inconsiderate enough to get himself killed in combat and thus waste all that taxpayer-supported military training he was given.
For those who still consider McCain's capture to be a mark of dishonor and a reflection of his poor skills as an aviator (instead of an acknowledgment of his bravery to face the possibility of capture or death during combat), you might want to consider how he spent his years of unproductive military service as a guest of the North Vietnamese.
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:33:13 -0500
Dispelling Internet Rumors About John McCain
By James H. Warner, FrontPageMagazine.com | 2/5/2008
Recently, I have seen several allegations that condemn Senator John McCain for his behavior as a prisoner of war. I believe that these allegations are false. I am in a better position than the Senator's accusers to know the truth since I was a prisoner with him, having been captured a little over a month before him. I have contacted hundreds of my comrades on our e-mail list and not one of them can confirm anything that has been alleged against McCain. Let me tell you what they have told me and what I saw myself, and answer some of the charges. First, I should say that I have great respect for Senator McCain, even though I am at odds with him on many issues and have remained distant from his campaign. I say this up front because I think that a defense mounted by one of his supporters would be less credible. The first allegation is that the Soviets directed our interrogations and that John McCain gave up valuable intelligence during his interrogations. We doubt this. The Communists were not very skilled at keeping secrets from us and to my knowledge only one man saw someone whom he could identify as a Russian in any camp - a female "journalist' who claimed to have been wounded as a tank commander in WWII. When the prisoner she was interviewing demanded that she show him her scars she knocked him off of his stool.
Everyone, when interrogated under torture, lied to the interrogators. Surely Soviet intelligence knew, as should any intelligent being, that there are no swimming pools on the decks of American aircraft carriers. Yet this lie was told and believed. One man was beaten for refusing to tell where the Navy keeps pigs and chickens on an aircraft carrier. Surely Soviet military intelligence knew that our ships have refrigeration and do not need to carry livestock. There are countless other such stories which cast doubt on the participation of the Soviets.
In any case, McCain was only a pilot. I cannot think of any tactical information which a Navy pilot could have which would be of any value to an enemy who lacked the capacity to attack an aircraft carrier. Nor can I think of much strategic information which any sensible person would give to a pilot who might be shot down and captured.
There are exceptions to this, of course. In any military or naval hierarchy, it is sometimes necessary, for day to day operations under unusual circumstances, for some men to be trained in various skills which may become useful should those circumstances arise. Even the existence of such skills should remain a secret as closely held as possible.
A few men in the camps had such a secret. Had it been disclosed by anyone, we would have known it instantly. It never was.
Someone has circulated a transcript of a radio broadcast made on June 2, 1969, in which McCain says that he received medical treatment and that we were being well treated. If it is authentic, it reads like a statement that he might have made when first captured. It did not take long for men to learn that they could manipulate language when tortured to make statements. Thus, at the Stockholm "War Crimes Tribunal," the Vietnamese Communist government offered a statement from an American who confessed that Clark Kent (Superman's alter ego) and Ben Casey (a character in a television show) ordered him to do terrible things. The Vietnamese only realized that they had been snookered when they saw Soviet journalists laughing at the joke the American had played on them. To John McCain's critics I promise that I can get you, too, to make a statement on any subject I wish.
We have no evidence that Sen. McCain received special treatment. Since he was as thin as the rest of us, if he did, it was not in the form of decent food. It is alleged that he was taken into Hanoi and put up in a hotel with prostitutes. This is an improvement on the allegation spread during the 2000 campaign that he was given a Vietnamese woman to live with him in his cell, an allegation that led me to ask why, if he was my friend, didn't he ask if she had a sister? Even when he was in solitary confinement, he was constantly in contact with others. Further, we always knew about movements within the camps, because the Communists simply were not competent at preventing us from gaining intelligence. Men who were in the camps with him agree that they are not aware of a single night that he spent out of his cell.
A friend, whom I know to be reliable, was across the hall and one door down from McCain's cell when McCain was first captured. He has told me that he saw Communist officers enter the cell where the wounded John McCain lay, incapacitated. He heard them offer McCain early release and heard John answer that he would go home when we all go home. He heard the voices of the officers rising until they were shouting angrily at McCain and threatening him. This was followed by screams of agony from John McCain, and a stream of obscenities from him. He could not see what they did to him and I never heard from John McCain what it was. This does not sound like a collaborator.
In the spring of 1971, I personally witnessed evidence of John McCain's loyalty. After the attempted rescue of POWs at the camp at Son Tay, in November of 1970, almost all Americans were moved to Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi, the infamous "Hanoi Hilton." The Communists felt so threatened by the raid that, for the first time, they concentrated us in large cells with as many as sixty men in a cell.
One of the first things we did was to institute regular religious services in our cells. On January 1, 1971, we were told that all religious activity was forbidden. This led to a long series of increasingly hostile confrontations, which someone has labeled "the Church Riots." I was in a cell next to John McCain's cell. In early March, the four senior men in his cell were removed and for some time we lost contact with them. Then the four senior men in my cell were removed, and we lost contact with them, also. The confrontations rapidly escalated. My recollection is that John McCain was now the senior man in his cell. In any case, I know that he was deeply involved with what followed. The senior men in our two cells kept us under tight control, but carefully staged demonstrations of our anger over the religious ban and the removal of our cell mates. On March 19, St. Joseph's Day, I remember the men in McCain's room singing, at the top of their lungs, first "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," then "Onward Christian Soldiers."
We knew that this could not go on. The night before, when men from our cell went out to wash dishes, the largest men in the cell, me included, were sent out and told the stand a few inches in front of each guard, cross our arms, and stare angrily into their eyes. The guards were nervous. After 10 minutes the one I was staring at began crying and ran away. Shortly thereafter a platoon of armed guards returned with him. A Vietnamese officer nervously ordered us to return to our cell. We stood fast. Finally, after we had repeatedly disobeyed the orders of the Vietnamese officer, the senior man in our cell stepped out and quietly told us to go inside.
The Communists were thoroughly frightened. Given the history of Communism, we had no illusions as to what might come from this. They had killed 100 million people to maintain their control. What would a few American pilots mean to people like that? For much of our incarceration they had threatened to execute some of us.
John McCain was involved in planning and carrying out these confrontations in order to gain the right to worship in our cells. He knew what we were risking. At sundown, on March 19, they came, first to McCain's cell, then to ours. A total of 36 of us were taken, at gunpoint, out of the cells. Outside our hands were tied, then our elbows tied behind our back, and we were blindfolded. We did not know what was about to happen, but I am certain that none of us thought we were being taken to a hotel to have a party with Vietnamese girls. To our relief, we were taken to a camp where we were put in solitary confinement for the next seven months.
I may not agree with John McCain on some policies. However, I will go to my grave remembering the American officer who helped organize men to defy an enemy who wish to deprive us of religious observance. Even today I cannot hear "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" without tears, as I am still moved by the courage of the singers and the leadership of John McCain.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 14, 2008
The man is running for Prezident for the nth time. Everything is on the table. Yes he sacrificed, a sacrifice this nation can never repay and one that should of never occurred. But if he is going to use that time of sacrifice as a reason for electing him, then it should be under the utmost scrutiny as well as everything else about him. Sorry but that is the way it is. No one candidate is above it.
The only ones that didn't tell anything important are dead btw.
Comment by Dean | February 15, 2008
"3000 USELESS NEW YORKERS" is it Dean? Is that what you think about the 60 cops, 343 firemen, and 2,500+ civilians butchered on 9/11 by Islamic thugs? Two of my friends were among those useless NYers. Both of them were military combat vets and one volunteered to travel to Oklahoma and rescue innocents from the rubble of the Murrah building in 1995.
The 9/11 victims were not useless NYers, they were Americans!
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | February 15, 2008
I guess it is time to weigh in as a Viet Nam veteran. First, let me be clear that I do not support McCain for any position higher than dogcatcher. The peter principle lives and McCain is the current poster example.
However, I, and I am sure my brethren in the VFW American Legion and VVA, accept no criticism of McCain as a documented war hero. All of us were sold out in Viet Nam by a no-win political environment and ludicrious rules of engagement and all of today's troops are being sold out by the same cowardly policies.
Should my support of McCain as a war hero color my support of him as a candidate? No! McCain is unqualified to be commander in chief. He understands neither strategic or tactical issues involved in protecting our country against terrorism. In fact one could say he supports the concept of domestic terrorism since he supports amnesty and open borders. The first strategic imperative is to make the homeland safe…McCain fails this miserably.
I will probably do a write-in for president this year since none of the candidates are qualified…that's politics!
I have taken a step that may get Republican notice. I changed my registration from Republican to Independent. If enough of us nationwide take this step maybe someone will get the message that conservatives will no longer support a single party and will pick and choose candidates that meet our objectives.
Comment by Mickey G | February 15, 2008
Dean:
I agree that "everything" is on the table when you run for president. But that doesn't mean we have to accept idiotic comments from weeedley like "This knucklehead destroyed 5 jet aircraft belonging to the USA. One more and he would be an ACE—for the enemy" without any comment.
I always like to start with the assumption that this isn't the Huffington Post, and when we debate the merits of an individual or issue we actually debate those merits. If some moron wants to inject stupid, irrelevant slurs into the discussion as a precursor to his observations, that kind of thing needs to be highlighted and condemned. Otherwise, why bother debating any issues at all? All we need to do is see who can invent the most creative slurs and offer the most distorted views of reality, and then leave it at that.
If, as you say, McCain is doing what Kerry did — saying "elect me because I served in Vietnam — then he deserves to be critcized. But I don't believe that's a fair characterization of McCain's campaign (and I am decidedly not a McCain supporter). Assuming you or others believe it is, then let's discuss specifically what McCain said on the matter, not invent some idiotic slur to dismiss his service to our country.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 15, 2008
I have a short interlude between commitments, so I thought I’d try to address a number of recent Comments. The fact that I do not address each one is not that I do not consider them worthy of response, or evasiveness on my part, just a time constraint. I do hope to address all in the course of time.
Dear Sedonaman – if I have given the impression that I consider God of the Scriptures, and Allah, as the same , I do apologize. I hope my previous articles and Comments make my position clear on that. I know that President Bush has made statements to that effect – I do not share them.
Dear Phil – I appreciate you bringing to our attention the views of one of McCain’s fellow POW’s. I’ll get to that in a second. First, I see that McCain has now voted AGAINST a ban on waterboarding (and, so far as I understand, restricting the CIA to the Military Code on ‘torture’). Now that must raise, must it not, some serious issues of McCain’s credibility?
Bush has made it clear that he considers it essential that certain (undisclosed) techniques should be available to the CIA because they work, and because they have saved lives. If McCain is to believed, therefore, that must mean that Bush is not telling the truth, which in turn implies that he, like the CIA operatives who administer this method of extracting information to protect us, are simply doing it to satisfy their own lust for inflicting pain on people because of the ‘pleasure’ they derive from it. No matter what anyone thinks of Bush and the CIA, I think that would be a terrible accusation to level against them.
But returning to McCain, his vote AGAINST the ban on what many call “torture” must imply one of two things. Either he is admitting that those subjected to such techniques do disclose valuable, and life saving, information, and that he has therefore been wrong all along (which in turn casts doubt on his claims of what he suffered- and I fully accept that he suffered something – and what he resisted), or it means that he is prepared to discard his ‘principles’ because, at this moment in time it suits him. If it is the latter, that must mean that he is prepared to sanction “torture”, which will be totally ineffective, simply because it will enhance his ‘career’. That does not seem to me to be a particularly ‘principled’ stand.
Let me now address the quote you give from his fellow POW. This seems to raise more questions than it answers.
The first thing it singularly fails to address is the allegation that McCain, on a visit to Vietnam some time after he was released, asked the Vietnamese authorities not to disclose his POW records. Now we could dismiss this as ‘scandalous rumor’, (and I have no knowledge about the authenticity of that allegation, although some make it with conviction), then there would be a serious problem, would there not? If McCain is maintaining his credibility on what he underwent in Vietnam (and he has certainly done so) on the basis of the Vietnamese concealing information that could undermine his position, then the Vietnamese (and even perhaps the Russians) would have a lever to use against McCain in order to extract concessions from him. In short, he would be a candidate for blackmail. That would be an extremely dangerous situation for the American people, and indeed the whole world. Is that a risk worth taking?
Let me now address McCain’s fellow POW. When I first read this extract, I thought it might be a joke.
Let me just repeat briefly some of the claims:
1. “The Communists were thoroughly frightened.”
2. “The night before, when men from our cell went out to wash dishes, the largest men in the cell, me included, were sent out and told [to] stand a few inches in front of each guard, cross our arms, and stare angrily into their eyes. The guards were nervous. After 10 minutes the one I was staring at began crying and ran away”
3. “One of the first things we did was to institute regular religious services in our cells.”
4. “He (a POW across the Hall) heard them offer McCain early release and heard John answer that he would go home when we all go home. He heard the voices of the officers rising until they were shouting angrily at McCain and threatening him. This was followed by screams of agony from John McCain, and a stream of obscenities from him. He could not see what they did to him and I never heard from John McCain what it was.”
Phil, I really think this is a joke – are you sure someone’s not having you on??.
If this is supposed to be describing people subjected to “torture”, I just hope that America can do a better job.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 15, 2008
Joseph:
I know an individual who was a POW with McCain. He disagrees with McCain on certain political matters, but not on the issue of character.
I'll take my lead on this from someone who was actually there, rather than someone who speculates on the matter.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 15, 2008
Phil, thats fine, I am really not a McCain supporter because of his prior stands with the dems on numerous issues; McCain Feingold in particular but the biggest is his stand with our el presidente on illegal immigration. It turned him to persona non grata with me, being from Texas and all. There are numerous other reasons why I feel the GOP should of abandonded him quiet a few years ago. Nothing to do with his war record whatsoever. In fact, I am a military aviator right now and can't even imagine the hell he went through in the hands of his captors, even after SERE and being on the ground in one combat zone for a tour. But it don't make him Presidential. I am sick of paying deference to guys who made it in the military/govt. world but would of failed to make it past new hire in the civilian world where most people in the US have to live their lives on a day to day basis. Most military leaders (of which I am one) wouldn't survive one week in the corporate world. I have made it to mid level in the military, in the tough tactical aviation world and started a successful business on the side which is thriving. I have flown in combat for 2 Presidents. Won't say which ones, don't ask. Because of past histories like Vietnam we know for a fact our nation's finest can and will literally be thrown away for political expediency. I'll take the discharge dishonorable or not before I die for someone's reputation and I know for a fact that attitude is spreading. This time though, guys know what happened in the late 60's and 70's, they will still serve but there will be that question in the back of their minds though. Neither of my kids will serve if I can help it, not after this debacle. Sorry if that hurts people's feelers, dgafs!
Dean
Comment by Dean | February 15, 2008
Phil, I agree that you should take your lead from someone who was there – it’s a wise position to take.
I was not speculating on what actually happened in Vietnam – I simply quoted from the statement you posted – from someone who was in fact there.
Phil?? – “thoroughly frightened” Communist (interrogators)?; Interrogators “nervously” ordering their ‘victims’ back to their cells??; “disobeying orders” of your ‘torturers’??; Guards being nervous, and breaking down in tears, because their captives “stared angrily into their eyes”??
Please Phil!! Good try though!
If anyone had ever brought me a ‘testimonial’ like that when I was practicing law I would have thought they were trying to sabotage my client – it would never have seen the light of day.
Are these wimps, who break down in tears when someone looks “angrily” into their eyes, really the people who caused the United States to abandon the war in Vietnam? I think that is an insult to the American men and women who spent months, and years, in the jungles fighting for their country, only to be betrayed. And betrayed by who? The real wimps – those feathering their nests in Washington!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 15, 2008
Dean: From a policy standpoint, I think we're in pretty close agreement on McCain. Unfortunately, as I've written about before, the choice in November will be between him and Hillary or Obama. Voting third party or not voting simply isn't a realistic option except to "make a statement". But elections are not about statements, they're about the acquisition and exercise of power.
I think it weakens the debate to interject slurs against McCain as that dufus did earlier in this discussion, and distracts from the substance of the issues at hand. Besides, it dishonors his service to our country to imply that McCain was negligent in getting shot down during combat, and by implication this dishonors all those who served in the military. That was the main point I posted the article written by a fellow POW.
By the way, I live in Texas too. Come March 4th I've decided to vote in the Democrat primary since the Republican presidential primary is essentially over, and there are no contested races of importance in my district. My vote this year will be "against", not for a candidate. I'm voting against Hillary in the primary to return the favor for all the Dems who crossed over and messed up the earlier primaries. Obama is a fool, but the Hill-Bill Death Machine is dangerous and cannot be allowed to return to power. Come November I'll be voting against the Democrat nominee. Hopefully by 2012 I can cast a positive vote again. But if not, I'll keep participating in the only presidential race that matters — between the Democrat and Republican candidates — by voting against someone again.
Take care, Phil
PS: I've got two USAF Academy graduate brothers, and one brother like me who remained in the civilian world. Your comments about the military and business management are right on point. Success in the business world often requires skill sets that are beyond the military mind (entrepreneurship/thinking outside the box, strategic compromise, good people skills with subordinates, etc.). It's not impossible to make the transition to the real world, but it can be difficult. On the other hand, in the world of national politics, some attributes of a military mind can deal better with entrenched bureaucracies than the more traditional business mind. I think a lot of it comes down to personal temperament … which is not McCain’s strong suit. McCain, Hillary or Obama; what a choice in 2008!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 15, 2008
Mickey G, I apologies for not reading your Comment more carefully earlier.
I respect your respect for McCain’s war record, but I think the rest of your assessment is absolutely correct.
As a future article I have prepared argues – the Republican Party has left the Conservatives – a little like the Democratic Party left Reagan.
If McCain wins, I think that will be the end of the Republican Party as a Home for Conservatives, and thus the end of the Republican Party as we know it.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 15, 2008
You are right in that respect, the election leaves the gOp with little inspiration. Sad but true but I think that no matter how much we build up McCain or ignore him or even build him up we will lose. Leaving Cheney in as VP and grooming someone starting at least 4 years ago set up the party for something like '92. The dems are wound up excited, the majority of true Republicans, ie. conservatives are left out in the cold. Too bad, it could been nice to have 8 more years of a real Republican. Instead we set ourselves up for failure rather nicely. Nominating an old man, controversial to the base at best, poor on immigration (incredibley stupid at best considering both libs and dems were against any sort of amnesty) and what do the party hacks and delegates do? Push the one guy who is a major negative for most everybody in the GOP and independents. Poor, poor, poor strategy. It doesn't matter if the base is excited, he will lose. I mean promising a 100, 10000 year occupation of Iraq? To most Americans and military that means we have lost? Pulling out in the near future means victory. We only stayed in post war Germany and Japan to keep the big red machine in check. Staying over there ensures years of constant warfare, high gas prices and very little positive. the outlook is bleak any sort of true American due to the dems being very liberal. Oh well we asked for it.
Comment by Dean | February 15, 2008
The fact that anyone here is debating anything with Dean after the vile hate-filled crap he spewed earlier (comment 11) with respect to 9-11 is staggering to me. Nobody even called him on it.
As I wrote in comment 14 (it was held up in moderation to clean up the language), among the "3,000 USELESS NEW YORKERS" butchered on 9/11 by our country's enemies were 60 cops, 343 firemen, and over 2,500 innocent civilians; two of these heroes were my friends. Both served our country in peacetime (as NYC cops) and in war (one Airborne, one a Marine) and died saving other "USELESS NEW YORKERS" from the fiery inferno to which they themselves fell victim. One of these men, a Marine Sgt. Major, was also a veteran of the rescue efforts in Oklahoma City after the McVeigh (a friend of yours Dean?) bombing for which he volunteered because he saw the innocent victims in Oklahoma not as USELESS, but as American's.
Anyone who'd spit on the noble graves of these heroes by dismissing them as "USELESS" deserves scorn, not validation.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | February 16, 2008
I must admit to entering the conversation only after seeing and reacting to weeedley's comments. The "useless" comment is, unfortunately, the same kind of over-the-top hyperbole that tends to discredit everything else that follows it. We can have a legitimate debate about whether McCain would be a good or bad president, whether US Middle East policy is correct or not, whether the best strategy is to vote third party or vote for/against the Republican or Democrat candidate. But there's no value in needlessly trashing the innocent victims of a terrorist attack.
This is the increasing problem I see with so-called "debate" at IC. In comment 19 Dean puts forward an intelligent set of points — one I'm somewhat sympathetic to with regard to McCain's faults and the military mindset in civilian life, though one I disagree with on broader US policy in the Middle East. It’s the basis for a real conversation.
Now Jeff rightly points out comment 11, and I’ve got to wonder what would motivate such a despicable tirade. There’s a difference between being provocative in order to make a point, and insulting decent sensibilities.
We’re at risk of turning this into the Daily Kos or Huffington Post unless people accept some responsibility for debating vigorously, but respectfully. I have to agree with Jeff on this one.
Dean, do you really stand by the “useless” comments?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 16, 2008
After reading the posts on this article I must admit I have come to the conclusion that the term "intellectual conservative" is an oxymoron.
For most of you calling for a third party I am not sure if you want a third party or a Third Reich.
Military people are not capable for the civilian world? If it was not for DARPA the hate mongering on the Internet would have have to be done using the USPS and sending your vitriol with stamps attached.
I remember in 1999 and 2000 the last times I read Inc. magazine when they listed their top 10 entrepreneurs for each year. All 20 of them have now gone through bankruptcy both personal and the corporations they headed.
May I remind everyone it was not people from the military who gave us junk bonds, the Dot bomb, and sub prime mortgages. These are the works of these intelligent, civilian entrepreneurs that too many of you seem to have a wont to worship.
I retired from the Army and set up a project management contracting business. I found corporations that could not make a decision if their lives depended on it. Back stabbing office politicians who would screw their own mothers to get ahead. Incredible ignorance when it came to being forward looking and having the ability to build for a future. Incredible cowardice in being able to be their own person. Greed on a scale that left me gasping at times. Greed in wanting their stock to keep growing and growing even when it costs them their own jobs. Political correctness gone mad, short term thinking based on greed, what I found in American business in big and small corporations, located in Virginia, Georgia, Maryland, California, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Washington, Texas, Florida, Connecticut, Ohio, Michigan, and New Jersey was the living embodiment of Oscar Wilde's definition of cynicism, they knew the price of everything and the value of nothing.
It wasn't people from the military that led to over 1,000,000 layoffs in silicon valley in 2000 in less then 4 months. It wasn't people in the military that gave us the H1B visa. It wasn't anyone in the military that has led the housing market to the brink of losses that make the great depression look like boom times.
My brother was pursued by the Pepsi Corporation for years finally they made him an offer he could not refuse. He was there for six months and resigned. He could not suffer the stupidity that he found himself surrounded. They knew how to dress, they knew every buzz word possible but they were all five miles wide and a quarter inch deep. He came up with an expression for these light weights, Pepsi pretty.
Like those of you posting on this thread they thought they were geniuses and did not realize it was the product not them.
It is like so many people I met from the business world they considered themselves business people but all they were in reality were working stiffs drawing a paycheck. That is until someone in executive management's greed to increase the stock value leads them to layoff the working force.
It was not people from the military that gave us Enron, or GM posting a 30 billion dollar plus loss. No it was business people that gave us these gems and more so much more.
As far as the personal attacks on John McCain I do not know him very well, but I knew his father. I was on the elder McCain's staff when he was CINCPAC. For all of you who wish to attack him personally I am reminded of Hyman Rickover's famous line, "great minds discuss ideas,average minds discuss events,small minds discuss people."
Comment by jfking | February 16, 2008
"My brother was pursued by the Pepsi Corporation for years finally they made him an offer he could not refuse. He was there for six months and resigned. He could not suffer the stupidity that he found himself surrounded."
jfking — I don't think you and I are necessarily disagreeing. I think coming from a military background makes it harder to succeed in the business world, in part because the two worlds are so different. It has nothing to do with the core competence of the former military candidate. As for the stupidity, duplicity and greed of the civian world, again all too true, but this is only a related point. Even in a corporation where these kinds of things are minimal, the military and civilian cultures are so different that it makes integration hard. Not impossible, but difficult, unless the corporation has a military-inspired hierarchy (such as Perot systems, pilots for any major airline, etc.)
Those from the military tend to get very frustrated very quickly with the way civilians run things (incompetence and duplicity aside). On the other hand, I've seen those with a military background do quite well navigating government bureaucracies, where people from the civilian world more often than not fail. [And put a civilian in a military structure, and there will be equal frustrations and failures]. I don't want to over-draw the relationships, but I think it's a fair assessment as a general principle. Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 16, 2008
wondering if those comments would get somebody fired up. yep, I really meant 'most' useless New Yorkers and californians. That better? I really dont– dgafs….
Mr Phil Jackson is right about comparing the military style leadership and civilian, pretty much apples and oranges. Although to be fair, I think if you count the wasted dollars the military has spit down the drain compared to all the corporate muck ups and criminal cases, it doesn't even compare. The military with its captive workforce, sole, almost propietary mission in life has squandered way more than most any mucked up corporate effort over the years. Maybe I'm wrong, but its apples and oranges anyways.
Comment by Dean | February 16, 2008
Dean there is no maybe about it. You are wrong.
Comment by jfking | February 17, 2008
Dean:
"The military with its captive workforce, sole, almost propietary mission in life has squandered way more than most any mucked up corporate effort over the years. Maybe I’m wrong, but its apples and oranges anyways."
This is a little off topic, but having been in charge of up to $30 million in defense spending, I can say with a little authority that it is apples and oranges. Let me give you my perspective.
"To be fair," as you wish to be, you should compare military waste against non-military government waste. To begin with, you might ask why you never hear in the media about waste in non-DOD agencies. Can it be because waste in welfare spending had a “good intent”? As we discuss all this, the Berkeley, CA, public school district is trying to keep from loosing $243,000 in federal grants for gourmet lunches for students. (How much you want to bet they don’t?) This has not raised so much as an eyebrow. Contrast that against the hew and cry raised by the legendary $400 hammer, the $600 toilet seat, and the $120 diode. Consider also the lack of concern over the 5 - 6% waste Secretary of HEW Califano under President Carter admitted to. If he admitted to that much, you know it had to have been (and probably still is) a lot more. Add on to that the fact that welfare spending far outstrips Defense spending and you could conclude that welfare waste far outstrips Defense waste.
Let me conclude by saying that Defense waste is part of the strategy of defeating the enemy. Consider WW-II for example. The US was able to defeat the Axis powers mainly because it was able to out-produce them and get more equipment to the battle. Did all the weapons we produce make it to the battlefield. No, of course not. Were they “wasted”? I think not. Now consider welfare waste. There is no strategy for it other than shoveling money into the street for the sake of shoveling money into the street. It is a reward for bad behavior, to say the least; and behavior that is rewarded is likely to be repeated. But that's OK, because it "helps" people.
Enough said.
Comment by sedonaman | February 17, 2008
Dear Mr. McMillan,
I have to say that in large part I agree with your assesment of McCain. His military record aside, he has made political compromises which cause any sensible conservative to wonder at what he'll give up as president.
That aside, your article is idiotic and unrealistic with regards to Islam, World War I, British military history, the war in Iraq, and the realistic chances of America using force against anything we don't like. It's embarrassing to conservative thought that you can't come up with a better argument.
Your problems with a gutless airline from a gutless European culture which won't fight for common courtesy have nothing to do with Islam in general and have everything to do with the Muslims in Western Europe who are encouraged to stay there and live on welfare but not willing or permitted to assimilate. The Muslims from Iraq, Jordan, the U.S., Malaysia, Indonesia who I've met don't have the slightest trace of that attitude (regardless of the many flaws in their religion).
What else could the "pompous World War I generals" do? The weapons and equipment of that war (i.e. machine guns, limited armor protection, no wireless communication on land) favored the defensive under the conditions of trench warfare on the western front; and they didn't "continue until everyone was tired of the whole sorry business", they in fact defeated the Germans on the battlefield with American power of course, and the Treaty of Versailles and Woodrow Wilson's idiotic support for ethnic nationalism need not have led to World War II.
Churchill himself said that no other war was more unnecessary than World War II; and it would not have happened had the British and especially the French faced down the Germans in 1935(conscription), 1938(Anschluss), or 1939(all German forces fighting Poland) when the odds were overwhelmingly in their favor, or had the U.S. backed up their sanctions against Japan with any kind of effective buildup of force.
The British retreat at Dunkirk was feasible because the British people then had the guts to follow the war through and take back France eventually, and not out of line with other British defeats early in a war - if as you're implying we should "temporarily" withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan do you think there's a chance in hell we'll eventually have a victory there?
In any case your standards of victory are ridiculously high - you wouldn't have been satisfied until the Germans and Japanese were celebrating George Washington's birth and July 4.
Comment by crenner | March 5, 2008