Foreign Policy

John McCain has a depth problem.

Over the past few weeks, I have written a few times about McCain's lack of familiarity with technology -- specifically e-mail and the web. In a New York Times interview, the candidate told a reporter that he's working on that whole internet thing.

Q: But do you go on line for yourself?

Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need – including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else.

Q: Do you use a blackberry or email?

Mr. McCain: No.

Emphasis added.

But let's not forget another interview Senator McCain gave with the San Francisco Chronicle.

GOP presidential candidate John McCain, fundraising in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the nation's technology capitals, acknowledged Monday that he isn't a "tech freak" or entirely comfortable with the Internet, BlackBerrys or e-mail. But he strongly disputed criticism that he is "out of the loop" as unfair.

As former head of the U.S. Senate Commerce committee, McCain said, he has been a driving force to oversee legislation that helped the Internet flourish - even as he is still learning to get comfortable with it himself.

"Am I a tech freak? No," he said in an interview Monday with The Chronicle. "And I don't like to text message because I'd rather call somebody on the telephone."

"I do understand the importance of the computer. I understand the importance of the blogs," he said.

McCain said he is well aware that technology "does drive the news. It is changing the shape of the news. ... It's changing the information age, and I've got to stay up with it."

He added, "But I am forcing myself ... let me put it this way, I am using the computer more and more every day."

And that's where we were a few weeks ago. A 72 year old Republican candidate that was simply technology deficient. A candidate of the "olden days," as Paris Hilton might say.

But then something troubling happened. McCain gave an otherwise innocent speech in Erie, PA on August 11th regarding the Georgia-Russia conflict. Reports then surfaced linking McCain's speech to the Wikipedia entry for "Georgia." Remarkably similar passages were laid out, side by side, at some websites; this revealed an uncanny similarity, familiar to college professors who have been victims of plagiarism:

First instance:

one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

vs.

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)

Second instance:

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)

vs.

After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)

While the campaign, of course, has tried to muddle this controversy, I think the phrasing similarities speak for themselves. There's no doubt that the source was relied upon; as for whether it was careless research or a calculated effort, we don't really have the ability to know.

But let's assume, at the minimum, that this was a result of careless writing by the McCain campaign. No other act could be further from their campaign message, could it? They are running on the senator's foreign policy experience, his ability to rely on his knowledge of countries around the world and the web of geopolitics linking them. They're also running against someone they portray to be a lazy celebrity. The "life must be grand in the spotlight" McCain ad comes to mind here. Obama, they're trying to argue, is merely a lightweight, an empty suit, who can do nothing more than string words together. But McCain's problem here is that he couldn't even do that.

If one wishes to be viewed as a foreign policy heavyweight, he or she should be able to put their own views into their own words. I, and many other Millennials, want the best person for the job. We don't want someone who can't provide the country with original thought. We're not looking for someone who can't communicate with us at our level. We're looking for someone with depth, who can make sound decisions based on statistics, data, advice from the best and the brightest.

After his interviews revealing technological ignorance, after his attacks on Obama void of any logical justification for his own candidacy, and after this Wikipedia incident, John McCain's lack of depth is becoming quite apparent.

Traveling again today, this time down to DC. If you are in town, come and see me at Busboys and Poets tonight at 6pm.

On the train down I read tow articles that have been sitting open in my browser, taunting me, for a few days now. Both offer a different perspective on the war and foreign policy that I think are important for us all to comprehend.

The first is an article from the New York Review of Books, The Volunteer Army: Who Fights and Why. The article provides a detailed look at just who our soldiers are and examines their motivations for joining the military. While there are a decent number who cite 9/11 and patriotism, the article makes it abundantly clear that economic and health concerns are a driving force behind the decision to join the military. In a society where entrance to the middle class is getting harder and harder to attain, the military offers a way up for those struggling to escape dead-end economic situations. Or, as the author says:

In today's America, the hunger for a college degree is so great that many young men and women are willing to kill—and risk being killed—to get one.

That certainly puts recent statements by Vice President Cheney about the now 4,000 soldiers killed-in-action in Iraq (he said “they volunteered”) in a new light.

How much of a volunteer are you really if the military is one of the only feasible ways for you to be able to provide money and health care for yourself or your family?

The second story comes from Spencer Ackerman over at the American Prospect: The Obama Doctrine. It’s an important profile of the Obama campaign’s foreign policy team, and how they are offering a new approach that fundamentally breaks with US foreign policy in the last 35 years:

I spoke at length with Obama's foreign-policy brain trust, the advisers who will craft and implement a new global strategy if he wins the nomination and the general election. They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root. An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda. Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It's both and neither -- an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.

***

When considering any presidential hopeful's foreign-policy promises, it's important to remember that what candidates say is, at best, an imperfect guide to their actions in office. What proves to be a more reliable indicator of presidential behavior is a candidate's roster of advisers. (If the press had paid better attention, the country would have seen through Bush's pitch about a humble foreign policy and realized that many of his advisers, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, were conspiracy-minded warmongers.) Obama's foreign-policy advisers come from diverse backgrounds. They are former aides to Democratic mandarins like Tom Daschle and Lee Hamilton (Denis McDonough and Ben Rhodes, respectively); veterans of the Clinton administration's left flank (Tony Lake and Susan Rice); a human-rights advocate who helped write the Army's and Marine Corps' much-lauded counterinsurgency field manual (Sarah Sewall); a retired general who helped run the air war during the invasion of Iraq (Scott Gration); and a former journalist who revolutionized the study of U.S. foreign policy (Samantha Power). Yet they form a committed, intellectually coherent, and surprisingly united foreign-affairs team. (Shortly before this piece went to press, Power resigned from the campaign after making an intemperate remark to a reporter.)

They also share a formative experience with each other and with Obama. Each opposed the Iraq War at a time when doing so was derided by their colleagues, by journalists, and by the foreign-policy establishment. Each did so because they understood that the invasion and occupation ran counter to the goal of destroying al-Qaeda. And each bore the frustration of endless lectures on their lack of so-called seriousness from those who suffered from strategic myopia.

Update: One more thing - how does this square with the theory that youth turnout rises during wartime ('72-Vietnam; '92-Gulf War I; '04-Iraq)?
--------------------------
Gallup has a new poll analysis (hat tip) tracking views on the Iraq war by age cohort. The results show that older Americans are more likely than younger Americans to view the Iraq war as a mistake. Looking at the data, Gallup's results aren't all that shocking. Americans over 50 (Boomers, GIs) are the least likely to view the war favorably, while Late Boomers and Gen Xers - who tended to vote more Republican in their youth - are the most supportive.

When it comes to the Millennials, the pendulum is swinging back towards the viewpoint that the war was a mistake, but just barely. 56% of Millennials surveyed think that the war was a mistake, while 41% do not think it was a mistake. The breakdown by gender shows women are more likely to view the war unfavorably than men (61% vs. 51%).

In the end, I don't think the Gallup poll shines a bright light on anything in particular, at least not by itself. The Gallup question is pretty vague, and as such doesn't get to the heart of Millennials' views on the issue. There's no necessary correlation between not viewing the war as a mistake and being in favor of the conflict. There are tons of reasons that the war might be viewed as a mistake or as the proper course of action. The Gallup data needs to be coupled with the rest of our knowledge of young voters' views on foreign policy and the Bush Presidency: