On Hating War

To echo Ezra Klein's point, nothing about the fact that John McCain (allegedly) "hates war" should blind us to the fact that McCain loves advocating for the initiation of wars. McCain has a healthy understanding of what war means -- healthier than my own or than George W. Bush's -- but also a radically unsound understanding of how international relations works. To most people, war is horrible but sometimes necessary. To McCain, war is horrible but frequently necessary. We do ourselves a disservice if we focus on McCain's understanding of the horror of war to the exclusion of his belief in its frequent necessity. This was all well summed up by McCain in March of 1999:

A firmer response to North Korea might have triggered a war, a war we would win, but not without paying a terrible price. Moreover, refusing to help ease the deprivations in the North, and hastening the collapse of the regime might have also resulted in war as the North's last desperate measure, or at least a very messy re-unification with the South. Instead, we have sustained North Korea long enough for it to develop missiles that might be capable of striking the United States, and allowed it to proceed with its program to develop nuclear warheads. North Korea is still inexorably nearing total collapse, and its leaders remain quite capable of launching in their country's death throes one final, glorious war. But now, they are much, much -- better armed.

His view was that Bill Clinton should have started a war with North Korea in 1994. Not because he doesn't hate war ("not without paying a terrible price") but because in his view, war with North Korea was inevitable so better sooner than later. Five additional years of non-war didn't change his mind. Indeed, in January of 2003 he was accusing George W. Bush of being too soft on Pyongyang. And there's every reason to believe that five years after that he still believes what he believed in 1994 -- namely that we should engage in brinksmanship and quite possibly war with North Korea not reluctantly, but at the soonest possible opportunity.

But he hates war. Which is nice.

Comments

So, more accurately, McCain detests the theoretical war that the war he's advocating for is calculated to preempt.

Barack Obama : opposing dumb wars :: John McCain : opposing wars at a later date

Posted by southpaw | March 27, 2008 3:04 PM

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "hate" is. Apparently, it means "strongly support."

Posted by fostert | March 27, 2008 3:05 PM

Does "A firmer response to North Korea" equal "Bill Clinton should have started a war with North Korea in 1994"? Just so we know when you're using hyperbole and one you are being straight, could you be specific here? Thanks.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2008 3:18 PM

This quote is a convoluted mess.

McCain is worried that a firmer response would have triggered a war, which would have been costly to the USA; and N. Korea is nearing total collapse BUT, they can attack the U.S. so we should have bombed them earlier because they're better armed then they use to be.

What about China? Are they gonna let us bomb N. Korea and unify them with the south without saying a peep?

Posted by D. | March 27, 2008 3:19 PM

I can't stand McCain but I have to admit I understand the logic.

When I was growing up I hated green beans and peas. However, whenever they were on my dinner plate I made a point to eat them first just to get the unpleasantness out of the way.

Sadly I don't think war with North Korea, Iran, China and Russia are quite comparable to vegetables.

I think it would be more comparable to going to an all you can eat green bean buffet and being told you can only eat your apple pie when you finish all of the green beans.

is anyone following this???

Posted by AJ | March 27, 2008 3:29 PM

AJ: but what if you misdiagnosed what was on your plate as green beans? What if it instead were a baby kitten. Would you still stab it with a knife and fork and bite its head off right away?

Posted by phil | March 27, 2008 3:36 PM

The reason Bush didn't start a war with North Korea is simple:

1) No oil.

2) Pentagon studies showed fifty thousand US casualties within ninety days.

3) Iran actually has nukes - Iraq didn't - and he knew it.

McCain doesn't care about either of those reasons - so he'll start a war with North Korea - after he starts one with Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc.

This is what I've been saying. If McCain gets in, we have a war with Iran within the first six months of his administration (assuming Bush and Cheney don't start it in the next nine months, that is.) If Clinton gets in, the war starts sometime around the end of the first year. If Obama gets in, the war starts sometime in the second year.

It's just about timing. The war itself is inevitable.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 27, 2008 3:37 PM

For McCain, the prize of the presidency equates with being commander-in-chief of the world. The nations of the world (or those without nukes) will be expected to follow orders, or expect to absorb some satellite-guided missiles. Dr. McStrangelove.

Posted by A. Halsey | March 27, 2008 3:47 PM

Maybe Quiggin is right?

The election really has Matt frothing.

Matt's ability to creatively read whatever McCain says is something to behold.

And the tone dial is set to at least medium shrill.

It kinda makes me want to vote McCain.

Following the links and reading what McCain actually said, about say a housing crisis bailout, really gets me leaning towards voting for McCain.

If I just limit myself to reading Matt, I am pretty sure I am going to end up voting for McCain.

Posted by someguy | March 27, 2008 4:30 PM

No war, no war heroes, no war heroes, no John McCain. Being against war would be like some perverse death wish.

Posted by bjk | March 27, 2008 5:53 PM

It tells me something when the best liberal bloggers, the normally fair liberal bloggers, are smearing McCain.

Nowhere does McCain call for war except in Matt's fevered imagination. What he is actually calling for is to NOT HELP NORTH KOREA. To not reward their bad behavior with more concessions.

What he's saying is that if we don't help them, they'll collapse. And that should have been our policy from the get-go. We shouldn't be propping up that regime.

Posted by Adam Herman | March 27, 2008 6:14 PM

John McCain hates war in about the same way that drunks hate liquor and fatties (like myself) hate ice cream.

Posted by Jim D | March 27, 2008 6:40 PM

"What he's saying is that if we don't help them, they'll collapse. And that should have been our policy from the get-go. We shouldn't be propping up that regime.

Posted by Adam Herman | March 27, 2008 6:14 PM"

Because the only thing keeping the Kim's regime above water was our help? They have the popular support of the most brainwashed populace on the planet. Has our embargo killed of communism in Cuba?

Also, we almost did go to war with NK under Clinton. The South Korean press went ballistic over it.

Posted by Reality Man | March 27, 2008 9:53 PM

In the excerpt Matt quoted, McCain says very clearly that his recommended policy carries the risk of war with North Korea - a risk he was willing to take, and reiterated in 2002 and 2006.

McCain sees himself as Churchill, and he's quick to cast every petty dictator as Hitler. And his favorite stand-in for Neville Chamberlain? Bill Clinton - who in McCain's oft-repeated estimation, did not cross the commander-in-chief threshold. In fact, McCain repeatedly accused Clinton not only of vacillation and strategic incoherence, but of placing political gain above the national interest.

Posted by Asp | March 27, 2008 10:43 PM

Oops, did I screw up that post. Read "North Korea" for "Iran" in the appropriate place.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 27, 2008 11:43 PM

If McCain really hates war so much - I'd love to hear of a single instance when there was a military option on the table, and he was publicly opposed to it.

Posted by David Jahns | March 28, 2008 12:03 PM

Does "A firmer response to North Korea" equal "Bill Clinton should have started a war with North Korea in 1994"?

That's a fair question; I think that MY should have been clearer about this. A "firmer response," if I read McCain correctly, consists of (1) demanding that North Korea eliminate its nuclear program, rather than simply freezing it, and (2) get North Korea to do this by relying solely on "coercive measures such as sanctions."

The United States has imposed sanctions on North Korea since 1950. The idea that we could have convinced North Korea to abandon its nuclear program in 1994 by threatening additional sanctions is silly, because we were already doing just about everything we could to sanction North Korea. The only serious coercive options involved the use of military force.

In the 2003 article that MY links to, McCain is still being coy, but less so:

The use of military force to defend vital American security interests must always be a last resort, as it is in this crisis. But...the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people.

I think it's pretty clear McCain is using "whatever it must" as a euphimism for "go to war."

Clinton concluded that North Korea's nuclear program posed an unacceptable risk to the United States, but rather than going to war, he decided to offer North Korea some diplomatic carrots. Bush decided that North Korea's nuclear program posed an acceptable risk to the United States, so rather than going to war, he basicly did nothing. McCain rejects both those approaches, which doesn't leave him with a lot of options other than war.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | March 28, 2008 9:38 PM

First, McCain was opposed to the Lebanon deployment in 1983. For someone who wanted to know when he opposed a military option.

Secondly, McCain has been very critical of the handling of a lot of wars, and his criticism was more often than not prophetic. He may have been wrong about going into Iraq, but he has a long record of being right on military and security issues when others either didn't know what was going on or kept silent.

Back to NK specifically, no, sanctions didn't work, no, it probably wouldn't have brought the regime down. But giving them aid in exchange for empty promises? That's just nuts.

I think McCain would be open to energy and food assistance in exchange for a verifiable dismantling of their nuclear program, but Clinton and Bush just gave North Korea something substantial in exchange for promises. That's just dumb foreign policy.

As for the risk of war, remember that we're talking about a regime that threatens war constantly, especially in regards to world sanctions. It's not McCain's fault if doing the right thing causes someone else to start a war. That's not McCain being a warmonger, it's Kim Jong Il being a warmonger. And when two successive administrations succumb to those threats by giving Kim food and energy assistance, that shows not diplomatic skills, but cowardice.

Posted by Adam Herman | March 28, 2008 11:37 PM

It's worth recalling that McCain's experience of war involved sitting in a prison camp, and before that, flying two miles above the battlefield.

Certainly he's a war hero. But he was not a grunt. And he may well believe that his experiences as a pilot give him a better apprehension of the realities of war than he actually has.

Speaking of which, it's odd when you think of it how few of the veterans we have elected ever experienced war on the ground.

Posted by Carrington Ward | March 29, 2008 1:25 PM