O Rly? The Substance of McCain’s International Experience

Tell me, Senator McCain – since you’re profiting off of the conflict – why is Russia’s invasion of Georgia so wrong?

McCain’s answer – “In the 21st Century, nations don’t invade other nations” – reeks of hypocrisy, and is the sort of amateurishly simple statement that I’d expect of, well, a blog.

*Ahem*  By which I mean, a bad blog.  Unlike this one.

Making such categorical statements – interestingly, a statement that he’s openly defied – suggests to me that McCain doesn’t really understand foreign policy.  There are reasons to invade other countries.  Our invasion of Afghanistan to unseat the Taliban redefines “ius belli”: they harbored our enemies, and they were evil.  Too bad we’ve since so tragically dropped the ball in that war (a problem that, I hasten to remind you, the allegedly inexperienced candidate recognizes and wants to fix).

More importantly, though, this little blurb suggests to me that McCain hasn’t thought through exactly what distinguishes the war in Georgia from our war in Iraq, or that he isn’t willing to set into words the distinction he sees between the two. Certainly there is a distinction – the war in Georgia was at least provoked by Georgian incursions into Russian Ossetia, whereas any provocation in Iraq was a manufactured lie – but that distinction suggests the precise opposite of McCain’s position.

Maybe the distinction is that Saddam was evil.  That’s fair.  But then McCain’s statement reduces to “in the 21st Century, nations don’t invade our friends.”  He should come out and say that, or risk proving to us all that fighting in a war doesn’t make one qualified to lead one.

Cross-posted at “Yes to Democracy”