McCain choosing sides


Senator John McCain poses with Syrian rebels. Among them is ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi circled on the left, and ISIS terrorist Muahmmad Noor (far right).

Over the past few months, the entire nation has been building its condemnation of the terrorist group ISIS.  Those who are usually non-interventionists like myself have now joined the hawks on solving the issue of destroying ISIS.  It seems that everyone and their mother, democrat or republican, support the bombing of the Islamic State, especially the media.  “Bomb, bomb, bomb” has been the response of every republican politician when asked on what they believe should be done to prevent the spread of the barbaric terrorists.  One of these republicans is the same man who called for airstrikes in Iraq to counter them in the beginning of the crisis, and is known for his imperialistic tendencies.  When asked what the U.S. should do about ISIS by FOX News host Greta Van Susteren, Senator John McCain simply replied, “Kill ’em”.  The simplicity of his remark perfectly reflects McCain’s foreign policy, which is characterized by its aggressiveness and weak, undeveloped claims that attempt to justify American military intervention wherever.  It is because of his “hammer and nail” foreign policy that he is so inconsistent in who he views as America’s enemy.  Although the logic in his foreign policy is severely limited, he still has the audacity to criticize President Obama for giving a speech he would approve of if it were given by any Republican.

As you may recall from the the U.S.’s disputes on whether or not we should intervene in the Syrian Civil war by arming the rebels, McCain and many of his fellow war-hawks, Hillary Clinton included, strongly supported assisting the rebel militias.  When President Obama made the decision against this, and instead focused on removing the Assad regime’s chemical weapons through diplomacy, the war-hawks criticized him for it as they always do.  While other congressmen rallied for aiding the rebels, Senator McCain took this a step further.  He met with members of the Free Syrian Army and other insurgent groups when he traveled to northern Syria in May 2013.  During this trip, he took photos with some of the rebels he met with, some of which he posted online himself.  Of the men found in a few photos with the Arizona Senator shares a strong resemblance to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the now caliph (supreme leader chosen by Allah) of the Islamic State.

monMcCain’s communications director, Brian Rogers, has of course denied the claims that the man in the photos is Al-Baghdadi, but would not reveal the identity of the individual.  This comes as a surprise and is ironic that McCain, one of the first politicians to call for airstrikes on ISIS at the beginning of the 2014 Iraqi insurgency, could have actually spoken to the group’s leader.  Because of this, many have accused McCain of being hypocritical for condemning ISIS considering how he likely met with ISIS members when in Syria.  Of course, no one is defending ISIS, they’re just frustrated at McCain for so quickly switching sides in who he supports, ISIS or Assad.  It’s quite possible that some of the more radical opposition leaders who he met contributed to the formation of ISIS.  What this shows is that he had no knowledge of the people who he met with there or their background.  The essential principle of the McCain doctrine is challenging powerful nations that aren’t U.S. allies, and constantly criticizing any of their military expeditions while justifying U.S. imperialism and supporting our military allies such as Israel and the UK.  He just likes to target whoever appears to be the bigger bully, which was Bashar Al-Assad in 2013, and supports anyone will opposes the bully alongside him, and disregards the extremist members of the opposition.  This is the case in the situation in Iraq and Syria.  Upon hearing how successful the terrorist group ISIL was in capturing Iraqi and Syrian territory and murdering innocent civilians, McCain jumped to advocate military intervention in Iraq against ISIL, a coalition of groups of which some were initially supported by him when fighting Assad, but when they invaded Iraq, he switches sides.

Anyone who knows McCain’s foreign policy of bombing, invading, and occupying shouldn’t be too shocked by these claims. Whenever or wherever there’s a military conflict going on, especially one that includes a regime hostile to the U.S., McCain advocates for the U.S. to exercise its imperialistic powers by crushing the foreign tyrants.  He believes that war is the solution to every problem and that the lives of our military personnel are perfectly dispensable, as if they are made sorely for serving his and other war-hawk’s interests.  The fact that such a man who associates no value with human life and thinks that violence is the primary solution to everything could have become the President of the United States is scary.  If he was elected, our republic might’ve been reorganized into the first American Empire.



This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to McCain choosing sides

  1. Could you explain this a little better? Is seems you support/agree with McCain on ISIL.

    “Those who are usually non-interventionists like myself have now joined the hawks on solving the issue of destroying ISIS. ”

    Several parts here I can agree with you on, I find McCain to be on both sides of the fight at times. Include with him Newt, Morris, FOX News and a bunch of those on the right. The badder Obama to act, then no matter what he does, claim it’s wrong.

    If you now support military action (war), who is it to be waged against?
    ISIL is the faction that seems to have came from Syria and invaded Iraq. It might be legal to attack them, there only.
    ISIS is the terrorist group in Syria. Obama and FOX want to attack them in Syria. Russia has warned us against this. It would be illegal aggression without UN approval.

    The real question becomes why would we attack them at all? They are terrorist, human rights violators to say the least. Buy why is that our fight? If so, what about all large terrorists groups? What about Boko Haram? What about those in Libya that raped and murdered our ambassador? A lot of terrorists need killing. Does Obama need to revamp Bushes total “War on Terror”? Any war, any time if it’s a large group of terrorists?


    • obscureecho says:

      You bring up a lot of good questions on the issue. It is these contrasting stances on the crisis that make foreign policy so complicated, especially a case like this. I personally believe that we should intervene in Iraq and Syria because of the sheer brutality of ISIS. Yes, there are hundreds of terrorist groups that violate human rights, most do, but we don’t fight against all of them. The Islamic State is far more effective and powerful than most other terror groups. It is because of this, that we should utilize our resources as a powerful nation to assist the Iraqis against the ISIS threat, but not through imperialistic means. Instead of using airstrikes through a strategy (if you can call it that) based sorely on the Republicans’ demands of “Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!”, we should focus more on the humanitarian crisis of the situation by launching a minimalist aid campaign along with the UN to prevent potential genocide, like we did with the Yazidis. Right now, our foreign policy seems to be more influenced by Anti-terrorism. I don’t want another war in Iraq, but the abnormally hawkish response by the media and public to ISIS’s rise shows that many Americans want one because they feel they are threatened by the Islamic State. To think that they stand a chance against the military superpower that is the United States is ridiculous. Despite this, Americans still overwhelmingly advocate the bombing in both Iraq and Syria. This bombing will only rally more extremists to join ISIS and fight us, thus only making them a larger enemy.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Jack Curtis says:

    The Senator has in recent years, reminded of Barry Goldwater, whose more senior years provided us what seemed a shifting view of affairs. On foreign policy though, he has indeed been steadfast, both in his prescriptions and in his aversion toward any consideration of how his prescriptions might be financed …

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s