McCain: A Neocon Realist?

John McCain's widely-touted speech on nuclear security has been treated by the mainstream media as a major break with Bush Administration policy. And while there are elements which diverge from some of Bush's destructive politics and policies--it is, after all, an Administration which has shredded several decades worth of bipartisan arms control agreements with the Russians-- it's also important to understand that McCain continues to define the problem through the prism of the Bush Doctrine.

How, for example does McCain, who seeks to expel Russian from the Group of Eight industrialized countries, anticipate negotiating successful arms agreements with the expelled country? How does a candidate whose neocon "League of Democracies" proposal--which would exclude Russia and, in doing so, undermine any role that country could play in dealing with Iran and securing weapons of mass destruction--expect Moscow to be receptive to real efforts on nuclear cooperation? Instead of hailing McCain's stance as a sign of his newfound realism --and a Johnny-Come-Lately break with the neocons-- it's critical to put McCain's remarks into a larger context.

I asked Joseph Cirincione, president of the respected Ploughshares Fund and author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons, for some deeper analysis of McCain's speech:

"First you have to give him credit for breaking with Bush on a number of issues, most importantly wanting to negotiate further cuts with Moscow, save the START treaty from expiring (a big concern of Sen. Lugar, correctly so) and taking tactical nuclear weapons out of Europe. He is showing a little leg on the nuclear test ban, too.

This seems to be an effort to pivot his policies for the general election, to find a way to merge his support for the neoconservative Bush Doctrine with appeals to the pragmatists in his own party and the moderates he needs to win the election.

He still defines the problem, however, through the Bush Doctrine prism. He leads with the threat from so-called rogue states. In this summer of sequels, McCain gives us "Axis of Evil II," with Syria filling the role formerly played by Iraq. He continues the distinction between "bad proliferation" and "good proliferation" saying he wants to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty to stop new states from getting weapons, but praising the deal with India that rewards that state for getting weapons.

The problem becomes clear when you step out of his speech to see who he is not talking about.

The most dangerous country in the world today is not our adversary Iran, which is still 5-10 years from a nuclear capability, but our ally Pakistan. Its unstable government, growing mountain of nuclear weapon material, and tolerance of al Qaeda bases within its territory give Osama bin Laden the best chance he has ever had of getting the nuclear weapon he seeks.

This is one reason realists like Henry Kissinger (who is said to have advised McCain on the speech) have concluded that nuclear weapons are a threat wherever they are. They are the only weapons that can destroy our country. All must be secured, reduced and eventually eliminated. This policy is in tune with the American people, with 70 percent favoring nuclear elimination in polls. This is where Barack Obama is. (Note that McCain does not mention securing loose nukes beyond a brief nod to CTR; Obama says he will complete the job during his first term.)

McCain tries to take a plank from Kissinger, and plank from John Bolton and build a nonproliferation deck, but it is wobbly, full of gaps and ultimately not one we can depend on."

It is indeed a wobbly plank, full of gaps.

If our media paid more attention to the arms race, and less to the horse race, we'd better understand the peril we face as a result of these last years of failed nuclear policy. John McCain is talking the talk, but if one looks more closely at his overall security policies, it's hard to see how he walks the walk. After all, wasn't it just last week that McCain equated engaging our adversaries with appeasement?

Flip-flop, anyone?

Comments (50)

1. McCain is a nitwit. Stiff arm Russia on G8 and then negotiate?

   How much aid are giving Pakistan? Where does Mr. Straight Talk Express stand on this issue? Why doesn't McCain take a visit to Northeast Pakistan and give us the low down. For someone who can't distinguish between a Shia and Sunni, and can't pronounce Ahmadinejad's name correctly, I don't have much hope that McCain will be able to negotiate anything.

   Who can forget the Indian Casino interrogations of a woman who danced with him artfully and then left him with the dinner tab and all alone without a goodbye, and not even a kiss goodbye to remember her by. His days of negotiating anything are done, but his pandering to special interest groups is still quite amazing. Count on lots of appeasement, military and economic aid to our enemies in order to buy compliance with what we want. Uncle Sap, as always, will foot the bill.

   Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 6:22pm

2. libzsuk-Ann and you need to get into high school and study some history.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2008 @ 6:35pm

3. Euler-what a sad specimen you are. Your only way of handling a serious argument is to resort to hubby stuff. Please do not frequent the Nation website --go off to those who would want to engage with a sick person like you. You are what has degraded this country. Off. Enough. kvh And do not call me by Katie/ you ugly man of a man of a man. The Man of Isle is too good for your exile. Get thee to Magadan, or to Norilsk.

   Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 05/28/2008 @ 7:32pm

4. Posted by Euler

   this is just a smear. you don't know where Katrina gets her information. she is a far superior intellect than you, and you owe her an apology.

   Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 7:37pm

5. Is it possible the legend is false?

   The "legend" being that John McCain is such an "expert on national security and foreign affairs"???

   I mean, we HEAR that a lot in the Media. That McCain is the defense and world affairs "expert"..."tons of experience in the area"...."Obama can't fight him on his home turf of national security/foreign affairs"....but...

   Could it all be ...a hoax?

   And self-promotion and a friendly Media saying "Well, sure, we know McCain is an expert on defense and foreign affairs"..."How?"...."HE tells us so!"?

   Hmmm?

   Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 7:45pm

6. Posted by madlib at 05/28/2008

   72 actually.

   And neither his age or possible mental state are needed to defeat him...just two simple words...

   "Had Enough?"

   or three, if you like

   "Four More Years?!??!?"

   Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 7:49pm

7. Neocon realist?

   Isn't that a contradiction in terms, like saying, for example, 'compassionate conservative?'

   Posted by skeletonman at 05/28/2008 @ 7:57pm

8. Posted by Euler

   this is just a smear. you don't know where Katrina gets her information. she is a far superior intellect than you, and you owe her an apology.

   Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008

   Agreed....this is an unseemly cheapshot by Euler. KVH mentions Russia and Euler, like Pavlov's dog barks hubbie. His attention span runs three lines. I am surprised he got that far in his/her/its analysis of her article.

   Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 7:57pm

9. 'This is one reason realists like Henry Kissinger (who is said to have advised McCain on the speech) have concluded that nuclear weapons are a threat wherever they are. They are the only weapons that can destroy our country. All must be secured, reduced and eventually eliminated.'

   I assume he is not speaking of our nuclear arsenal or that of Israel's. I am surprised that Kissinger, argued by many to the architect of defeat and appeasement in Viet Nam would be advising McCain. I guess Republicans as always figure that they when they appease it is forcing the enemy to the negotiation table and when Dems do it, it is siding with the enemy and giving them everything they want.

   Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 8:05pm

10. Neocon realist?

    Isn't that a contradiction in terms, like saying, for example, 'compassionate conservative?'

    Posted by skeletonman at 05/28/2008

    Oxymoron?

    Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 8:10pm

11. Posted by Euler

    you are an idiot. go read her Wiki bio before you slander your betters.

    and who the hell are you? any accomplishments? any advanced degrees? any publications, guppy?

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 10:31pm

12. (parasitic and deserving of being put against the wall).

    By the way, though I don't mind being called a man (although I hear Stephen does), that's not my physical "orientation." Best to you

    Posted by Euler

    well, i guess pathetic worm is more appropriate......

    you've done some serious damage to your karma.

    good luck.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 10:43pm

13. Posing as experts at everything from Russia to Iraq to health care to the inner city to education to now nuclear profiferation should be more than a bit revealing as to their superficiality. Her Russian, by the way, is practically non-existent, as, I assume, is her Arabic and, it would seem, her command of English beyond whatever prep school she attended (must have been Princeton).

    farted by euler.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 10:51pm

14. Well, I feel relieved....

    EULER just made me practically "saint-like" when it comes to Ms vanden Heuvel!

    heheh

    BTW, Euler, not blowing my own horn, but I refer to the writers here (less Peter Rothberg at his request) by the moniker "Mr." or "Ms." and their family name or by their full name.

    I'm a guest here, though a provocative one, I admit.

    Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 11:10pm

15. What does a man of a man of a man mean? Never heard that one. Googled it and got nothing.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008 @ 11:31pm

16. farted by euler.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008

    THAT one I get, but not the other one.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008 @ 11:34pm

17. This is a clever McCain ploy:

    1- to deflect Memorial Day GI Bill criticism, which is closely allied with veterans against the war / Walter Reed forms of criticism;

    2- to try and gain CIC high ground, the topic smells favorably of Reagan and end of cold war;

    3- to find something that is not a flip-flop, and that he can (if elected) exploit for endless photo ops while accomplishing none of his goal.

    Posted by winyahn at 05/29/2008 @ 12:11am

18. i'm an intruder here, i admit.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 12:18am

19. you know,

    i know this is very serious business,

    but it's hard to be serious

    when the whole thing is so goddamn stupid.

    mccain is just not bright enough to be president.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 12:42am

20. Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008

    Don't stay out late

    Don't care to go,

    I'm home about eight,

    Just me and my PC-O

    Saint misbehavin',

    Savin' all our posts for clues...

    :^)

    Keep up the good work!

    Posted by ttr at 05/29/2008 @ 12:51am

21. Bush wants $600 million for Iraq police, but cuts aid to U.S. cops

    By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON -- At the same time the Bush administration has been pushing for deep cuts in a popular crime-fighting program for states and cities, the White House has been fighting for approval of $603 million for the Iraqi police.

    The White House earlier this year proposed slashing the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which helps local law enforcement officials deal with violent crime and serious offenders, to $200 million in the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

    In 2002, the year before the Iraq war, the program received $900 million.

    ***********************************

    is this what you want more of, america?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 12:55am

22. So, nobody else knows what it means either, huh? Go figure.

    I'll ask Darla if she ever shows up again.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/29/2008 @ 12:57am

23. Yikes!

    Even you couldn't make this stuff up, Frosty...

    Posted by ttr at 05/29/2008 @ 12:58am

24. from the "inside iraq" blog:

    Reconstruction – Building a country – Where to start?

    Is the Electric Power Supply a good place to start?

    Are schools a good place?

    How about some sanitary water in our homes?

    People need services – and people need jobs and incomes. Some of our provincial budgets were returned to the treasury with only a small portion used up, why?

    Put the people to work! Give them something worthwhile to do, let them re-build their country.

    "The devil makes work for idle hands" a proverb that did not come out of a void, but out of experience and wisdom.

    Young men, out of jobs and incomes are easy pray for any group willing to "support" their "ideals",

    And they will fall pray – and they have!

    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    coming soon to a theatre near you?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 12:59am

25. Obama's policies sound like Jimmy Carter's policies. It is widely accepted that Carter was one of our worst Presidents. Can we really afford that? I mean Carter is the man who turned Iran against us by giving the shah asylum. That is what started the "DEATH TO AMERICA" chanting in Iran.

    Posted by abell12ct at 05/29/2008 @ 07:51am

26. Posted by abell12ct at 05/29/2008

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/29/2008

    Hmmm, let's see....

    rising gas prices...

    mortgage crises....

    housing sales lowest in 20 years...

    possible stagflation...

    and 160,000 hostages in the Middle East...

    Jimmy MIGHT have some competition!

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 08:55am

27. Posted by abell12ct a

    nonsense. what turned Iran against us is the meddling in their affairs for decades. CIA engineered coup d'etat. installation of the Shah and decade long support for his cruel and repressive regime.

    you are just not that bright are you?

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 @ 09:01am

28. Posted by abell12ct

    Try reading this & maybe you'll have a chance to advance from chumpdom.

    KILLING HOPE: US Military & CIA Interventions Since WW2 By William Blum

    Posted by Sorelish at 05/29/2008 @ 10:18am

29. What does a man of a man of a man mean?

    a grandson?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 10:30am

30. Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008

    I don't think that is what she was implying, since she prefixed it with "ugly".

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/29/2008 @ 10:37am

31. Maybe it means you knuckledragger of a knuckledragger of a knuckledragger.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/29/2008 @ 10:39am

32. I mean Carter is the man who turned Iran against us by giving the shah asylum. That is what started the "DEATH TO AMERICA" chanting in Iran.

    Posted by abell12ct

    absolute nonsense.

    operation ajax

    a "frog" named kermit........

    my respect for your opinions have gone from zero to negative 17,564,789.

    "The Persian Minister at Washington has stated orally that British companies are working to acquire oil concessions in the northern provinces, but that his government would prefer to grant these concessions to American rather than to other foreign interests." -- august, 1920.

    y'all messed it up.

    greedy greedy.

    "Wishing to see no other power assuming preponderance in Iran, the only alternative which suggested itself was to have the cooperation of the friendly government of the United States, "which Power is disinterested and possesses the entire confidence of the Persian people and Parliament."

    •••••••••••••••••••••••••

    From the first year of commercial oil production in 1859 until 1883, the United States accounted for more than 80 per cent of world production, a lead it maintained until the end of World War I.

    imagine that!

    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    President Warren Harding, believing that future military and domestic needs made it desirable for the United States to exploit oversea petroleum resources, opposed a tariff on oil.

    uh oh!

    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    The possibility of obtaining loans from the United States lured Iran into a close relationship with American government and private institutions. A century-long hatred of British and Russian "occupants" of Iranian territory gave hope to its people that close cooperation with such an "altruistic power" would guarantee independent sources of capital and enable Iran to exercise full sovereignty over its territory.

    come again!?

    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    Iranian Minister in Washington, Hussein Ali, expressed his gratitude to the American government in his letter addressed to the Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes: "The Persian Government and people have always recognized the altruism and impartiality which distinguish the American Government and people. They particularly appreciate the concern of the United States for fair play, for the respect of the independence of the smaller nations, for the maintenance of the economic open door."

    the fool.

    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    see, be nice and people will help you. they were muslims back then, too, you know.

    understand?

    they were muslims in 1920.

    gimme, gimme, never gets!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 10:43am

33. jomamma-Ann Coulters article shows that she has no clue as to what is going on inside of Iran and shows that she flunked high school history.Her views are simplistic and shows that she has no grasp of the complex world that we live in.It's just another case of a coward who is promoting wars because she knows that she won't have to fight in them.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2008 @ 10:54am

34. hey Libzsuck Please stop calling him Osama.

    Posted by abell12ct at 05/29/2008 @ 11:34am

35. Posted by mihnea

    you are an insult to the human race.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 @ 12:07pm

36. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/29/2008

    Yes, apparently bin Laden is now only slightly more popular than Bush!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 12:12pm

37. mihnea-Your broken English is obviously fake.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2008 @ 12:18pm

38. who a former Muslim is? (asks Yoda)

    Posted by abell12ct at 05/29/2008 @ 12:22pm

39. BTW, Romanians have a bad history with Muslims, hence mihnea's bigotry.

    All goes back to "Dracula", etc.

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 12:22pm

40. >>>McCain tries to take a plank from Kissinger, and plank from John Bolton and build a nonproliferation deck, but it is wobbly, full of gaps and ultimately not one we can depend on."<<<

    You can't enforce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with so-called "exceptions" for countries like Pakistan, India, and Israel.

    The issue is not just whether nukes may end up in the wrong hands, but whether the very existence of these weapons in some countries "motivates" other countries to get them as well. This becomes an enforcement nightmare, as countries try to deter aggression by those who already have these weapons.

    The only responsible approach is to be consistent in NPT enforcement. I know the right-wing Likud and AIPAC types don't want to hear this, but their "exception" approach to nuclear non-proliferation is completely destabilizing the world.

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/29/2008 @ 12:32pm

41. Posted by mihnea at 05/29/2008

    You see?

    We now konw mihnea's real name...it's...

    RENFIELD!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 12:52pm

42. RENFIELD.... OR .....GARFIELD???????????

    Posted by mihnea at 05/29/2008 |

    Okay with me either way.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 1:09pm

43. hey Libzsuck Please stop calling him Osama.

    Posted by abell12ct

    the phoneme "o" doesn't even exist in arabic.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 2:41pm

44. Posted by Euler

    crash and foolish.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 2:44pm

45. frikkin' orthographic karma!

    crass.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 2:44pm

46. Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008

    You're the one who is in trouble buddy! I have been searching far and wide for some Unibroue delicacies and I might as well be asking for a unicorn. So now I have to special order it, and I have to try several so I don't miss the best one, and now I am out much coin because you piqued my curiosity that you may have better taste in beer than me, and that just won't do, and......what if it really is better than Sam Adams, and I can't live without it, and......T.R.O.U.B.L.E.!

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/29/2008 @ 3:11pm

47. No duBois, I'm nothing, I have no advanced degrees, no publications, no prep school education, no rich relatives, nothing, in short, I don't really belong on the pages of the Nation, right? You represent the worst of your type (no wonder why people like you wonder why your views are rejected by most Americans. Not because they're ignorant, but because they simply see you as empty). I've finally come to the conclusion that the reason why I couldn't support Obama isn't because he's not qualified, or I don't support his views (he is qualified, and many of his views I support), but if he is elected, the system will vomit up legions of people like you. Simply not worth it.

    Posted by Euler at 05/29/2008

    You should really go take a media literacy class. The media (all media, ranging from The Nation to Fox News and beyond) has a bias. They all want you to believe certain things, accept certain truths. Judging from your posts, you've accepted some of the truths that the main stream media wants you to accept down to a core level.

    I'm not going to condemn you for this. If you wish to believe these things, go right ahead. However, what is despicable about what you type, is that you seem to possess no knowledge of why the main stream media tells you what it tells you. Failure to understand who's selling you information and why makes it very easy for them to sell you lies and half truths, as without understanding, you will not see the need to challenge what is presented to you.

    Posted by shadow master at 05/29/2008 @ 9:26pm

48. The very fact that McCain is still talking about the possibility of a war with Iran, who hasn't invaded anyone in, oh, 250 years or so, means he is planning on starting one. Why? Well, they have oil. They have the shortest piece of real estate for oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea Basin to the Indian Ocean, and they are the only serious regional economic competitor to Israel, who is really fond of bombing the economic centers of competing countries and calling it self-defense, such as commercial dairy plants and government controlled power plants in Lebanon.

    The final joke, however, will be on the US. Iran is a democracy, the only true democracy in the Middle East, and the Iranians will defend that democracy far more vehemently than Saddam's subjects defended his brutal dictatorship. Seeing as the world's largest, most advanced, and most self-congratulatory army has gotten its butt kicked by illiterate peasant farmers with outdated Soviet assault rifles in three countries now (Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq), I don't see how we expect to take down Iran which has nearly 65 million people. We'll spend every penny we ever had on a war we can't win there and languish as a failed Soviet-style former imperial power.

    Posted by zstauber at 05/30/2008 @ 10:10pm

49. I am amazed at how often conservatives come to sites figuring they may make a "dent" in rational thought, including cut and paste garbage from RW pundits that does little more than show that the RW has great difficulty in thinking for themselves. We have seen what the years of neo-conservative ideology has done to this nation, and still, essentially non-thinking people believe thay might see dawn after the long cold night. Well, they will, as soon as the neo-con movement receives it's stake in the heart moment when McCain gets trounced in the upcoming General Election.

    The years of denial are over, what bush and his cronies have done to this nation over the last 7+ years is not only criminal, but immoral as well. McCain, with his complete lack of competence becoming more obvious with each passing day, is without a doubt, one of the worst candidates the GOP could have put forth. I am hoping that the transition from idiocy to intellect will be swift and we will once again be able to get to work on putting this nation back on track, becoming the beacon of Freedom it once was, instead of the horror that is neo-conservatism.

    And for those small minded individuals that need to find an enemy, may I suggest you look into a mirror, there you will find the true enemy of democracy, freedom and dignity. You feed off of hate and fear, constantly looking for the next morsel you can digest, just to keep the level of hate up to where you can "justify" your self indulgent existence.

    Posted by rasputin195 at 05/31/2008 @ 3:59pm

50. see, be nice and people will help you. they were muslims back then, too, you know. understand? they were muslims in 1920. gimme, gimme, never gets! Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008

    Wow, Mr. Zoom! An excellent post, even for someone whose grasp of current and historical events, and wit are often impressive.

    BTW: I have a dear friend who was a participant in the Iranian revolution. She was shocked and disheartened when Islamic fundies hijacked what she - and many other revolutionaries - considered a struggle for democracy and liberty.

    Posted by Radscal at 05/31/2008 @ 8:52pm