Every election cycle, candidates spin their record to their benefit.   John McCain is no different.   While he’s not claiming to be a Washington outsider like Mike Huckabee, he’s seen as a straight-talking maverick who knows about war. His decorated service in Vietnam gives him credibility when he talks about foreign policy.

However, credibility is perception, so it’s outside your control. McCain’s credibility as the candidate with the most foreign policy experience rests upon the voters believing that his experiences in Vietnam and in the Senate make him uniquely qualified to protect America.

However, this isn’t necessarily true.

At its most basic level, John McCain’s foreign policy is about maintaining U.S. hegemony.   In an article he wrote for the magazine Foreign Affairs, McCain reiterates an argument for a stronger more militaristic foreign policy.   To him, the U.S. needs to promote a new international organization, the League of Democracies.   Also, we can’t leave Iraq; we need to raise more than 150,000 more troops for the occupation.   Finally, we need to ratchet up our support of Israel.

Sounds good, doesn’t it?   It’s a assumed that everyone in the world loves democracy, that it’s irresponsible to leave Iraq, that having more troops will solve terrorism and that Israel is a beacon of shining hope in the Middle East.   Well, right-wing Republican warmongers take these assumptions as true.   While it’s widely known that John McCain believes we can win in Iraq, even if our troops must stay for 100 years, McCain’s plans for raising 150,000 more troops and blindly supporting Israel are just as important and equally as troubling as his position on Iraq.

The U.S. army is being overstretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Soldiers are reluctantly being forced back for more tours of duty, the qualifications to enlist are being relaxed and the army is resorting to throwing money at potential recruits.   So when John McCain says we need 150,000 more troops, it sounds like a great idea.   But barring the draft, there simply aren’t many ways to raise a larger army if the public doesn’t support what that army is being used for.   If people don’t want to support a war with no end in sight that’s been mismanaged worse than Britney’s music career, then promising to pay for college won’t sway them.

Moreover, having a larger army would be costly and would not necessarily make the United States more secure.   The war on terrorism is not a war primarily fought on battlefields with tanks and airplanes like old war movies.   It’s not really a war just fought in the streets of Baghdad.   It’s a war to reshape the perception and beliefs of millions of people.   It’s a war to redefine the United States as just rather than a purely self-interested hypocritical hegemon.   It may be hard for John McCain to understand, but winning the War on Terror will never occur just because we bombed and killed the right people.

Also, a McCain candidacy would continue the same neoconservative view that Israel’s national security interests are the same as the United States’.   Despite the fact that Israel is the most wealthy and heavily armed nation in the Middle East, 30 percent of our foreign aid budget is devoted to Israel.   More importantly, McCain calls for “ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge,” which means that Israel not only needs more missiles and guns but also the best ones.   Ironically, one of the reasons why many people in the Middle East hate the United States is because of our record of unquestionably supporting Israel.   We can’t forge peace if one side distrusts us.

John McCain served his country honorably and is one of the most deeply patriotic individuals in U.S. politics.   However, his record of service does not justify his militaristic views on how to conduct U.S. foreign policy.   Promoting U.S. hegemony does not necessarily make us more secure but in fact may make us more vulnerable.