National security credentials, a Republican strength???

It is astonishing that so much of the public, encouraged by a pervasive Republican propaganda machine and a compliant media, continues to agree that McCain's national security credentials are his greatest strength. Poll after poll indicates that a majority of Americans believe McCain and his party are stronger on defense than Democrats. Why this should be the case, though, is a mystery.

McCain advisor, Charlie Black, has taken some not-so-friendly-fire for saying that another terrorist attack would help his candidate in the fall. The idea that anyone would suggest such an event might favor the presumptive Republican nominee seems outrageous except for the uneasy feeling that Black could be right. Remember those opportunistic color-coded alarm posters that appeared before elections? The wonder is that so many voters fell for those tactics so trustingly for so long. Would they be inclined to do so again?

Most surprising about the current flap is that Bush and supporters like McCain keep telling us their policies and counter-terrorism efforts are the reason we haven't been attacked again in the past seven years. The almost eight-year hiatus between the Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the one in 2001 is rarely, if ever mentioned, nor is much made of the fact that the perpetrators of the first attack were tracked down, arrested and imprisoned - - a rapid response that didn't take us to war against an ill-defined, poorly understood enemy. Unfortunately, the threat of terrorism wasn't taken seriously by the Bush administration when it won the White House, despite warnings from Clinton as he left office. And the Bush policies since 9/11 have only served to exacerbate terrorist angst in the Middle East while tying us down in the sinkhole that is Iraq.

How can a government with such a dismal foreign-policy record still receive high marks from voters when it comes to national defense? One reason is that conservatives like David Brooks continue to write, as he did in his most recent column, ( NY Times, 6/24) that "...before long, the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right." But this is only superficially so since the political reconciliation that was supposed to proceed as a result of the surge has largely failed to materialize. And not all analysts agree that the surge has been an unqualified success. "Beyond the declines in overall violence in Iraq, several crucial measures the Bush administration uses to demonstrate economic, political and security progress are either incorrect or far more mixed than the administration has acknowledged, according to ... the Government Accountability Office" (NY Times,6/24)

The obvious disconnect between the notion that Republicans are the best stewards of our security and constant apocalyptic warnings that we are in imminent danger seems to escape advocates who support those who talk the tough talk even when their walk is unsteady and misdirected. And the belief that our national defense system requires a ferocious military buildup keeps the country ever more reliant on the military-industrial complex about which Eisenhower warned so many years ago. Countries that manufacture war materiel end up either using it themselves or selling it to other countries for their war-time activities - - hardly a recipe for a peaceful resolution of world problems.

In any case, how would another attack on our soil benefit a party that insists their policies have kept us safe? Would a fearful nation turn to the very people who have created a firestorm in the Middle East, drained our treasury and stretched our military beyond endurance? Are voters really prepared to trust John McCain who so often seems out of touch in terms of geopolitical realties, so under-educated about the regions that most concern us? Do campaign commercials that focus on his military background, orchestrated with explosions in the distance, speak to the American people's trust in strong leaders or just to their innermost fears?

In attempting to provide some perspective with regard to how this whole national security issue may play out in November MSNBC's Chuck Todd suggested recently that it might all come down to whom the voters feel most comfortable with. In his analogy, Barack Obama is a high-wire act while John McCain, that solid, dependable guy, waits below holding the nation's safety net. If that turns out to be the general perception the greatest danger the country faces will be from within.