John McCain on National Security
February 22nd, 2008 at 09:47am Mark Noonan
It is John McCain’s strength against either of the two Democrats, but especially against Obama, who probably can’t differentiate between and M-60 and an M-16 without assistance - and John McCain is not backing away from the security challenges we face:
The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops.
Our existing force is overstretched by the combination of military operations in the broader Middle East and the need to maintain our security commitments in Europe and Asia. Recruitment and retention suffer from extended overseas deployments that keep service personnel away from their homes and families for long periods of time.
John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation’s defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today.
John McCain knows that the most difficult and solemn decision a president must make is sending young Americans into harm’s way. Having experienced firsthand the brutality of war, as president, John McCain would never make the decision to use force lightly, only when the cause is just, and our nation’s values and interests absolutely demand it.
It was a mistake on the part of President Bush to not call for a large increase in the United States military in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 - the public mood was ready for such a thing, and it would be better if we had at least three more Army divisions and one more Marine division available for war purposes. The Navy and Air Force could also be larger - expecially as even while we fight the War on Terrorism, we have to be mindful of an increasingly aggressive China and the resultant need for a strong American force immediately available for use in the Asia-Pacific theater. New weapons systems are going to come on line which will eventually alleviate the need for a larger military (this would especially be true of the Navy’s development of a “rail gun” which will allow the Navy to dominate most enemy land areas even from quite far out to sea, but that is still some time off), but our need now is for a larger military, and John McCain pledges to get it for us.
With Obama promising to lose the war over the course of 2009, the case for John McCain as Commander-in-Chief is just all the stronger - and as McCain also shows a keen appreciation of just what is needed, the American people cannot to better than elect him to the Presidency.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans, War on Terror
21 Comments
1. Diane Tomlinson | February 22nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Deleted - off topic
2. Magnum Serpentine | February 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
If I had my choice of having someone keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years or ending a useless war, I would go for Obama. Apologies for calling him President earlier, by the way.
3. Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
Magnum,
We know, for you liberals surrender is always an option.
4. Amanda | February 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
“who probably can’t differentiate between and M-60 and an M-16 without assistance”
Can you prove this? Come on. We need proof, right?
5. Diane Tomlinson | February 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Off topic?
How?
Rep Rick Renzi of Arizona, was one of the loudest voices in the House for the extension of the current FISA rules and the NSA wiretapping program that President Bush agrees is essential to protecting national security.
Renzi is also the McCain for President 2008 national co chair and he has been indicted by a federal grand jury on 35 counts which include wire fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and official extortion.
So my serious question for you is, “Are these the kinds of people that the American voters can expect to have be a part of the upper tier of a McCain administration?”
6. Brian (Boston) | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Throwing money at the military is not a solution and does not make you patriotic, and you are ignoring all other issues that are facing this nation. McCain is a pony with one issue…terrorism.
7. Casper | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Mark,
I agree we should have expanded of military several years ago. My question at this point is, how are you going to pay for it. Frankly, cutting taxes won’t do it.
8. NeoClown | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Mark,
As you know, I am a lifelong democrat, and a liberal, so I couldn’t possibly know anything about the military. You on the other hand are a conservative and an expert on all things military. I wonder if you could answer a few M 16 questions for me. Did you ever have any difficulty with the ejector port cover? If so what? What was your biggest complaint regarding the direct impingement gas system? Did you qualify on the M 14 too? What did you think about clicking in?
9. Diane Tomlinson | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
NeoClown,
That was really mean using things like “facts” and “actual experience” to argue effectively. [/sarcasm]
10. Magnum Serpentine | February 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
So are you saying if we leave we will give Iraq Texas? How can we surrender if there is not another nation we are at war with?
leaving a useless, needless, and pointless war is honorable and the right thing to do.
And I am not a Liberal I am a Centralist… Hey what about all of those Republicans who want to pull troops out of Iraq also?
11. Christian Wright | February 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 am
“John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation’s defense requirements.”
Read between the lines. He is talking about a draft.
I think a draft would be a good idea. It would get more people with children and young people draft aged involved with politics.
12. Yakki.PsD | February 23rd, 2008 at 6:35 am
Yeah,a draft is good…
WITH NO DEFERRMENTS.
Let those politician’s boys and girls get a taste of what our fighting men and women have to endure.
Go ahead Mark. Enjoy the draft idea buddy. Let’s have 100 years of war in Iraq with Mitt Romney’s sons,Bush’s daughters and the rest of those flag waving nincompoops who won’t fight for what they espouse,pick up a rifle and do it for country.
Think that’ll go through?
Nah. Just be more poor kids drafted and sent to die. Status quo,here we go!
13. Yakki.PsD | February 23rd, 2008 at 6:36 am
3. Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
Magnum,
We know, for you liberals surrender is always an option.
You mean like Reagan,right?
14. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 23rd, 2008 at 7:04 am
Yeah,
A draft would be good. That way all the libs would run to and infest Canada. There they could have their socialized medicine.
Then we could re-establish our country’s liberties and get the government back to what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
15. phnx | February 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
“Read between the lines. He is talking about a draft.” CW
Actually no, the plan is 100% conscription for every warm body between the ages of 18 and 24. 2 years mandatory service like the Israelis. The idea is to make men and women out of you little girls and boys.
16. Ken | February 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
I like the idea of 2 years of mandatory service like the system Germany has. Give people the option to either serve in the military or some social service. To be honest, I would rather have a draft for some form of Civil Service like the Civilian Conservation Corp than a draft for the Military.
17. Yakki.PsD | February 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Yeah,beacuse there aren’t any liberals in the military.
Sure. And I got a bridge to sell you.
BTW,how long have Romney’s boys or the Bush twins been fighting in Iraq?
Eh?
Heck,for that matter Chelsea Clinton? Has she picked up a gun and went off to die for her country?
Rich man’s children don’t fight in the wars their father’s support.
18. Yakki.PsD | February 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
BTw,when you say “what the founding fathers had in mind”,I sure hope you aren’t talking about a Christian theocracy,cause if so you’re full of it.
19. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
YAK,
the only one that is full of it is you. Obviously, you have no clue as to what the founding fathers had in mind. They did not have the desire to set up a theocracy.
I see you are just another USEFUL IDIOT to infest this site and spew the usual BS.
20. Yakki.PsD | February 25th, 2008 at 3:28 am
Prove it jr.
All you got is tired,washed up RWingnut spew. 221 years of Constitution,and men and women who are more learned than EITHER of us,and you think you got soem eye on the ball? At elast I defer to their greater wisdom on the subject.
But tell you what. Go ahead and try for your theocratic nation. See how fast you end up against the wall.
This country isn’t going to become the Christian version of Iran,no matter how much you radicals want it to be so. Only way is if you win the fight,and that aint gonna happen.
21. Yakki.PsD | February 25th, 2008 at 3:29 am
Now,if you aren’t for theocracy as so many around here seem to be,then good for you.
I believe in freedom,without limits unless they do harm to another.
So we agree then,on that point?