If McCain wins the presidency, I fear it will be the end of the Republican Party as a home for conservatives.

Ronald Reagan said that he had not left the Democratic Party, but that the Democratic Party had left him.

Judging by the conservative vote for Huckabee in Virginia, and many other states in the Republican race for the nomination to date, I expect many conservative Republicans will be thinking the same thing about the Republican Party under McCain.

What McCain (and his entourage of establishment figures intent on feathering their nests) rely on, is that conservatives will "come round" when they reflect on the consequences of the Democratic alternative, which seems more and more likely to be Obama.

So let’s just consider that "choice."

Iraq/Afghanistan

When it comes to this issue, the establishment Republicans simply defer to McCain because he is a  “genuine American War Hero.”

Obama, on the other hand, has no military experience.

McCain has said that he would stay in Iraq for a “hundred years” if it is necessary, or more. In support, he cites Japan and Germany as ‘"precedents" which support his stance.

So let’s consider that position for a minute.

So far (5 years, excluding Afghanistan for which McCain it seems has the same prescription for winning), there have been nearly 4,000 American servicemen killed in Iraq. There have been nearly 30,000 (conservatively estimated) combat casualties. Project that 100 years, and we have about 80,000 dead and 600,000 wounded (many very seriously).

On the financial side, we have already spent some $600 Billion (excluding Aid). Over the next 100 years, that would mean another about $12,000 Billion, plus lots more Aid.

McCain tries to portray this situation as similar to Japan and Germany. The comparison could not be further from the truth. Japan and Germany were reduced to rubble. At the end of those conflicts, there was no insurgency. The end was clear cut. Those countries themselves eagerly embarked (very quickly) on their own reconstruction (with help from the United States). More importantly, the ideologies which gave rise to those conflicts in the first place were expunged from the psyche of the people.

Victory in those countries was so decisive and overwhelming that the people had no taste for, and were entirely incapable of, prolonging their suffering. The United States has not been suffering casualties in those countries for the last 60 years.

If McCain cannot differentiate between the two he is dangerous. And his utter belief that he knows best compounds that danger. If he can’t see the difference now, how many more casualties does America have to suffer before he does recognize the differences that any schoolboy or girl could point out?

[Now, before I have McCain supporters jumping on my head to say that McCain was not advocating a 100-year war, let me say that I am perfectly aware that McCain qualified his 100 years by saying it could only be that long if American soldiers were not dying or being injured. But that puts the cart before the horse. How long then does he think we should stay to bring about a situation where no military personnel are being killed or injured? Would that be another 100 years? And if that situation did not materialize for say the next 5 years of his next 100 years, would McCain then advocate what Obama is now proposing? And how would he justify the sacrifice in the interim?

Obama, I expect, since he has already said that he would maintain a “presence” in Iraq even after a “withdrawal” of the bulk of the forces, would not object to a presence of American troops in a benign environment. It seems to me that McCain’s 100 years, and his qualification of that, is another instance of double-speak from the straight talker.]

But again, in the unfortunate possibility that McCain does get his grubby little hands on the levers of power, and if his deferential establishment colleagues do manage to secure enough seats in the Congress to give him a free reign by simply deferring to his "heroic past," irrespective of the cost to the United States, the outcome would be an unmitigated disaster.

The Islamic forces (probably the most dedicated and determined the United States has or ever will encounter, and probably the most cunning), are not being defeated; they are resurgent. They can smell victory. And McCain’s "strategy for victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan will give them the opportunity to capitalize of their successes.

“Research undertaken by Senlis Afghanistan indicates that 54 percent of Afghanistan’s landmass hosts a permanent Taliban presence, primarily in southern Afghanistan, and is subject to frequent hostile activity by the insurgency,” according to Afghan Conflict Monitor.

So 6 years after the Taliban and Al Qaeda were driven out of Afghanistan, they now again control over 50% of the country. And Defense Secretary Gates fears that NATO is disintegrating. Opium production destined for the West is at an all-time high, and helps finance the Taliban.

Meanwhile, this enemy success has been achieved from across the border in Pakistan, where there is now a de facto Taliban/Al Qaeda state straddling Afghanistan.

Bush, and other Republicans though (I don’t know about McCain, although I’d be surprised if he didn’t share the contempt), ridicule Obama for threatening to “invade” Pakistan. Yet, that is not what he said. If he had said that, he may at least have been making a more educated and accurate assessment of our predicament.

What Obama said was this: "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges, but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

Now I find it quite hilarious when I see the likes of Bush, and the establishment Republicans, ridicule that statement as a suggestion that the United States should “invade” a “sovereign state.” Is that not what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq? And, in any event, that is not what he said. What he said is that he would take whatever action is necessary and prudent to defend the people of the United States, irrespective of whether it may have consequences.

Pretty much everyone knows that the real hotbed of Islamic terror is based in Pakistan, and that that is where plans are hatched and refined for attacks against us. Pakistan also already has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Its Security Services (and some of its military) are ardent Islamists who set-up and support the Taliban.

Most Islamic terrorists get their training in Pakistan. And Pakistanis with fervent Islamic sympathies live all over Western Europe and the United States, and openly call for the establishment of Sharia Law in our countries (and Britain is in the process of capitulating to their demands).

So if anyone has the correct measure of the real problem we face, it is Obama, not McCain and his sniveling entourage.

Mike McConnell, The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), said this to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday (February 17, 2008): “Our situation now, when the terrorist threat is increasing because they've achieved — Al Qaeda's achieved de facto safe haven in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan — the threat is going up.” Then this: “Al Qaeda [have] established a safe haven and started to recruit and train — they've come back. But they're nowhere near where they were, their capability, in 2001. But they are there [Pakistan/Afghanistan]. They are viable. And they are recruiting and training.”

But what would be the effect of the United States withdrawing from Iraq, and even perhaps Afghanistan, in the immediate aftermath of the election? The answer is, a lot better than it will be when we have to evacuate from the roof-tops of the Green Zone in Baghdad, and Bagram Airforce base in Afghanistan with Taliban shooting at us from the perimeter fence.

But what would the advantages be? First, we would preserve our resources, human and financial, until such time as someone with the acumen, vision, and fortitude comes along to devise a strategy that will work, and who is prepared to identify our enemies for who they are, internal and external, and has the courage to do something about them.

Secondly, the people of the United States are losing their homes and are unable to pay for health care, while the United States is setting up Health Care centers in Iraq and Afghanistan, investing in the infrastructure of those countries, and spending billions of dollars defending a people that see us as the enemy, and who will not change that perception irrespective of the amount of money we throw at them. At least those funds could be used to help Americans – it is their money after all. Give it back to them, and if they decide they want to send it to Iraq and Afghanistan, then that will be their decision, not a decision forced on them by a bunch of politicians in Washington who do not have the fortitude to tell McCain to get lost.

National Security

In this department, there is in fact little to distinguish between McCain and Obama. Both want to close down Guantanamo Bay (because it offends the sensibilities of America’s allies), and both think it unfair to subject terrorist suspects to vigorous interrogation methods. I have dealt with McCain’s stance on this in my article "McCain Makes Me Sick!!"

But I would like to address one further aspect of his objection to being nasty to barbaric killers.

Some labor under the illusion that our civilization, and their security, is the product of our superior "morality." They seem to have little understanding of how our civilization is protected from our enemies. There are the few who risk their lives day in and day out in order to gain an insight into what our enemies are planning for us. These few do the dirty work we would like to pretend doesn’t happen, or we pretend that they could do their job of protecting us by treating our enemies as innocent children in kindergarten.

These few operate everywhere in the world, in extreme and dangerous environments, while we tuck up in bed at night.

But these brave and dedicated people have become the villains in this sorry saga. They have been vilified as being no better than our enemies. We the People, for whom they risk their lives, have become a source of fear to them almost equal to the fear engendered in their work.

The fact that McCain condemns the work that they do as “torture” shows a terrible contempt for them. It is simply an insinuation that they do what many others do not have the stomach to do for their own sadistic pleasure. It is a despicable insinuation that is made, in my view, for no other reason than McCain’s own vanity, and political ambition.

So what has happened? So reviled have these real heroes become in their own country, as a result of the insinuations by people like McCain, that they have been driven to establish “secret prisons” in foreign countries. They are compelled to conceal their activities for fear of being prosecuted and incarcerated by the very people they are protecting. They resort to destroying evidence which could help in future interrogations for fear that the likes of McCain may get their hands on it, and use it against them.

McCain and his deferential little entourage have driven our true heros into hiding from the very people they risk their lives to protect.

Yet, as in the aftermath of 9/11, if, or as the experts say when, the next attack occurs, it will be McCain and his lackeys who will be indignant that they, the unseen heroes, failed to protect us. But they would have failed to protect us because the likes of McCain prohibited them from doing so under threat of a Show Trial to display his credentials for humanity.

So if Obama were president, I don’t see how he would differ from McCain in this department – McCain could still have a love-fest with him from the Hill over the "brutality" of America’s true heroes.

Now I am aware that McCain voted against the so-called ban on “torture” last Wednesday (February 13, 2008). But his vote AGAINST the ban 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, 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.

According to Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top national security adviser, McCain’s vote reflected his concern about the Senate legislation's requirement that the CIA abide by Army rules. "It's not a vote for torture," Scheunemann said. "This wasn't a vote on waterboarding. This was a vote on applying the standards of the field manual to CIA personnel." Yet, the Army Field Manual bans waterboarding. More double-talk from the Straight-talker?

Already the Democrats are laughing: McCain was against “torture” before he was for it – a little like he was against Bush’s tax cuts, before he was for them.

Immigration

I expect that Obama and McCain will have a lot in common on this issue. I shall not examine it further, apart from forecasting a lot of inter-Party backslapping and congratulations when America opens its borders to all and sundry.

Judges

Here, McCain supporters will claim, is the strongest reason for conservatives to support him. But what if he doesn’t have a Republican majority in the Senate to keep him to his word? How will he get his judges, assuming he would be true to his word? Well, he has already given us an insight! Bi-Partisanship – for which read; capitulation to the Democrats – and yet more back-slapping and congratulations all round.

Conclusion

The only issue left of any consequences, therefore, is taxes. McCain claims that he will cut them. But given his commitment to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan by ensuring the establishment of two Islamic states, the best that could mean is that the American taxpayer gets less domestic bang for his buck.

So if McCain does win the presidency, I fear it will be the end of the Republican Party as a home for conservatives, and it will be a disaster for the world and America. If Obama wins, at least the Republican Party may come to its senses while Obama brings an end to the horrendous sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus hopefully resulting in a resurgent Republican Party, and real Conservative leader in four years time who will be ready and able to take up the fight for America, and the World, in the name of preserving our values and civilization.

And one final observation on Obama: At least the man has real courage. To take on the Clinton machine, when the Democratic establishment had already crowned Hillary, took a lot of guts. Good for him – I hope he gives her and Bill a good thrashing!!

Finally, I should like to finish on a personal note.
 
Until recently, whenever my boys (now reaching military age) expressed an interest in joining the military, I advised strongly that I would support such a choice so long as they joined the Armed Services of the United States of America (even though they are not American citizens). Now, and especially if McCain were elected President, they would have to escape from chains and padlocks before they could set foot in a recruitment office.
 
I would do anything and everything within my power to prevent my boys from sacrificing their lives to "serve and protect" an Islamic State, and that is what we have in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither would I let them, if I could at all help it, sacrifice their lives so that McCain can display his national security credentials, while the values they hold dear are dismantled at home.
 
Not being American, perhaps such a stance is easier for me. Perhaps most American parents do not feel that way. But I nevertheless would not envy any parent having to make such a decision.