McCain's Last Gasp
Oct 15, 2008

William Kristol, the neo-con columnist at the New York Times, has surrendered the campaign of John McCain. “His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama's........ McCain is doomed.”

Obama's lead in the polls is lengthening. He is far ahead on domestic issues although today’s stock market rally will help McCain by modifying the wave of bad financial news. Public concern about foreign and military policy, issues on which McCain is strong, continues to slide.

Look for a shift in the McCain strategy, away from issues of public policy, away from attacks on Obama's associations, away from Obama's inexperience.

The McCain focus in the last two weeks of the campaign will be his life story, his ancestors, his military service, his five year imprisonment in Hanoi, his bi-partisan initiatives in Congress, his embodiment of the American Hero and American values, making him the person who "deserves to be President."

This story, this strategy, may not work but it appears to be all that McCain has left.

Sic transit gloria mundi

Oct. 7 presidential debate: another Democratic victory
Oct 08, 2008

Who would have thunk it.

The October 7 debate was the town hall format in which John McCain was supposed to shine.

The Vice Presidential debate last week set a bar so low that Gov. Sarah Palin was sure to exceed it.

The first presidential debate could have gone either way.

Yet in all three debates, according to non-partisan polling, the Democratic candidate won.

Last night, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey), 54% thought that Barack Obama performed better while 30% liked McCains' responses better.

A CBS News and Knowledge Networks poll of undecided voters found the same result.

40% of the 516 uncommitted voters thought that Obama did better while 26% believed that McCain did better.

Three for three for the Obama - Biden ticket.  With only four weeks to go before election day, the Democratic ticket gains more momentum.

Register to Vote!
Oct 02, 2008

Of our 40,000+ supporters, at least 5,000 are not registered. If you're one of those 5,000, we – along with our sister organization, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and eight other peace and security groups - want to give you all the tools you need to register for this crucial election.

If you are not registered, PLEASE REGISTER!! If you don’t know if you are, let us know. If you are 100 percent sure you are, urge your friends to do the same (They can use our site, too.)

More details after the jump.

In debate, jabs fly as Obama talks loose nukes
Sep 30, 2008

With Sen. John McCain perceived as having an advantage over Sen. Barack Obama in voter confidence on foreign policy issues, Obama showed confident poise in his positions during the first presidential debate last Friday.

The first 40 minutes focused on the candidates’ approaches to fixing the American economy due to the ongoing market crisis. Obama focused on closing corporate tax loopholes, combating greed and corruption on Wall Street, and implementing tax cuts for the middle class. McCain chastised earmark spending increases as the source of America’s economic woes.

As the debate switched to foreign policy, McCain repeatedly asserted that Obama “does not understand” the challenges the United States faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain claimed that Obama’s support for direct talks with rogue nations would legitimize those regimes that want to cause the United States harm. Obama was quick to respond, highlighting that treating those we disagree with contemptuously only emboldens their motives. He used Iran and North Korea as examples.

On the issue of Iraq, Obama was quick to point out that he was correct in his judgment that Iraq was an unnecessary war and that the real central front in the war on terror is in Afghanistan, a conflict McCain has treated dismissively. McCain countered by stating that “The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not.” The squabbling between the two candidates on this issue highlighted the ‘judgment vs. experience’ debate that has been a theme of the race for months.    

One of the highlights of the first debate was when Obama expressed his dedication and desire for urgent action to secure loose nuclear weapons and strengthen other non-proliferation measures. As he previously outlined in response to questions from Council for a Livable World, Obama said that the issue of non-proliferation is important because “The biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons.” Obama has pledged to work extensively with other nations - including Russia, despite its recent aggressive actions in Georgia - to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials.  

The next presidential debate, in a town-hall format, is on Oct. 7th at Belmont University in Nashville. Prior to this debate will be the highly anticipated vice-presidential debate this Thursday, Oct. 2, at Washington University in St. Louis.  Many are looking to see if Gov. Sarah Palin can perform in an unscripted national debate against the unpredictable, knowledgeable, and always charismatic Sen. Joe Biden.  

Peter Galbraith sheds light on Iraq for McCain
Sep 29, 2008

Cross posted from Iraq Insider

Ambassador Peter Galbraith, Senior Diplomatic Fellow at the Council's sister organization, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, just published his latest essay in the New York Review of Books. The title says it all: Is This a 'Victory'?

Galbraith's assessment of the ongoing sectarian disputes in Iraq is fantastic. He excels at explaining the hidden motivations behind different Iraqi leaders' seemingly altruistic actions.

Galbraith's essay also is extremely relevant within the context of the presidential race. I regularly take umbrage at John McCain and other surge enthusiasts' constant use of words like "victory" and "defeat." I posted last week about what George Kennan might say on the matter. The week before that I couldn't help but remind people that General David Petraeus said that he did not know that he would ever apply “victory” to Iraq.

In the foreign policy debate last Friday night, McCain again used the word victory without defining what exactly that means for the United States in Iraq. "We came up with a great general and a strategy that has succeeded," McCain said on Friday. "This strategy has succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq. And we will come home with victory and with honor."

Galbraith, on the other hand, grapples with the uncertainties:

Less violence, however, is not the same thing as success. The United States did not go to war in Iraq for the purpose of ending violence between contending sectarian forces. Success has to be measured against US objectives. John McCain proclaims his goal to be victory and says we are now winning in Iraq (a victory that will, of course, be lost if his allegedly pro-surrender opponent wins). He considers victory to be an Iraq that is "a democratic ally." George W. Bush has defined victory as a unified, democratic, and stable Iraq. Neither man has explained how he will transform Iraq's ruling theocrats into democrats, diminish Iran's vast influence in Baghdad, or reconcile Kurds and Sunnis to Iraq's new order. Remarkably, neither the Democrats nor the press has challenged them to do so.

[snip]

John McCain says that partly because of his persistent support of the surge, we are now winning the Iraq war. He defines victory as an Iraq that is a democratic ally. Yet he advocates continued US military support to an Iraqi government led by Shiite religious parties committed to the establishment of an Islamic republic. He takes a harder line on Iran than President Bush, but supports Iraqi factions that are Iran's closest allies in the Middle East. He praises the Awakening and but seems not to have realized that the Iraqi government is intent on crushing it. He has denounced the Obama-Biden plan for a decentralized state but has said nothing about how he would protect Iraq's Kurds, the only committed American allies in the country.

George W. Bush has put the United States on the side of undemocratic Iraqis who are Iran's allies. John McCain would continue the same approach. It is hard to understand how this can be called a success--or a path to victory.

Galbraith's realistic analysis or McCain's empty slogans? You be the judge.

McCain and Obama Seek 1st Round Knock-Out
Sep 23, 2008

The first of three presidential debates will occur this Friday, September 26. In a prime time encounter, John McCain and Barack Obama will (hopefully) lay out their ideas about how to best structure and implement U.S. foreign policy over the next four years. These debates will be critical for the candidates, as the race is tightly contested and neither candidate has pulled away in recent polls.  

George Kennan on 'victory'...and McCain
Sep 23, 2008

Cross posted from Iraq Insider

I just finished reading six famous lectures George Kennan delivered at the University of Chicago in 1951. The lectures were published as American Diplomacy, 1900-1950.

In the peroration of his sixth and final lecture, Kennan stopped to consider the nature of military victory in the modern world. Kennan writes:

It was asserted not long ago by a prominent American [Gen. Douglas MacArthur] that “war’s very object is victory” and that “in war there can be no substitute for victory.” Perhaps the confusion here lies is what is meant by the term “victory.” Perhaps the term is actually misplaced. Perhaps there can be such a thing as “victory” in a battle, whereas in war there can only be the achievement or nonachievement of your objectives. In the old days, wartime objectives were generally limited and practical ones, and it was common to measure the success of your military operations by the extent to which they brought you closer to your objectives. But where your objectives are moral and ideological ones and run to changing the attitudes and the traditions of an entire people or the personality of a regime, then victory is probably something not to be achieved entirely by military means or indeed in any short space of time at all; and perhaps that is the source of our confusion.

Sheds some light on the flaws of the Bush administration's mission in Iraq, no?

Contrast Kennan's measured, realistic view with that espoused by John McCain this past Sunday:

Because of the sacrifices and perseverance of all the troops -- active-duty, Guard, and Reserve -- victory in Iraq is finally in sight...Even in retrospect, [Obama] would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory...In short, both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.

When McCain tried to pass off this type of blather as fit for the op-ed pages of the New York Times, the Times editor told his campaign to try again. McCain needed, in a revised draft, to "articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq [and] lay out a clear plan for achieving victory," wrote Times editor David Shipley.

In the foreign policy debate this Friday, I hope McCain will explain what he means by "victory" in Iraq. Does he see victory in Iraq, as I suspect, in "moral and ideological" terms, much to the chagrin of thinkers like Kennan?

Senator Lieberman Crosses Many Lines: One Matters Most
Sep 22, 2008

Senator Lieberman’s descent into political isolation will come after the election if the Democrats have at least 52 seats, no matter who is President. Lieberman has to pay a political price in the Senate for his endorsement of John McCain for President.

As a participant in successful efforts to strip House Democrats who supported Goldwater in 1964 of seniority, and strip three unfair and arbritrary Committee Chairmen of their posts after the House Democratic landslide in 1974 (post-Watergate), I can attest to the precise reasons for stripping legislators of their chairmanships and seniority.

Lieberman’s views on the Iraq war and his Iran bellicosity are not reasons. Even his outrageous connection with Reverend Hagee does not per se sink Lieberman. Even McCain rejected Hagee’s endorsement after his anti-Catholic comments. Hagee's tepid apology to Catholics does not reduce the virulence of his essential bigotry. Lieberman’s occassional liberalism (pro-choice, opposition to Alito’s confirmation, his leadership on global warming and DC’s rights to vote and to representation in the House) do not mitigate his actions in support of McCain for President.

Beware the polls on the presidential contest
Sep 16, 2008

There are breathless analyses by reporters and cable news anchors about the ebb and flow of the contest for President based on the latest polling.

In a Nutshell: McCain vs. Obama on National Security
Sep 16, 2008

The two major presidential candidates left standing would make major changes to the national security and foreign policies carried out by the George W. Bush administration over the last seven years. Not surprisingly, exactly what kind of changes depends on who ends up on the steps of Capitol Hill taking the oath of office in January 2009 -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).