TALK BACK

I read your McCain article two days ago and I read your book last fall. My question is more Bush/Iraq related.

It seems to me that a great deal of the motivation for going to war in Iraq was profit. The news just came out about the oil companies who have secured no-bid contracts to develop the oil fields in Iraq. The fact that Cheney and Bush had friends that stood to profit enormously from our military--the fact that our military operations everywhere are profitable for powerful people--just seemss underreported. I have read some--not all--of the articles/books about why we went to war, about Bush's ideology, and now your article about McCain's ideology/worldview regarding military action. It seems that writers and reporters (and voters) chalk so much up to a decision-maker's worldview, his/her personal belief about what works, what doesn't. But when powerful people have so much money and power to gain by an action such as invading an oil-rich country, why doesn't THAT become the commonly-held belief of why we went in the first place? Why is THAT not provided as a prime motivation in articles and on the news?

I am not really talking about your article on McCain, because our decision to go to Iraq was not its main concern. People--especially Senators--have strong opinions and approaches to policy, and your article taught me quite a bit that I did not know about McCain and and the '90s. If you can teach me something else by answering my ramblings, I would appreciate it. Thank you!

Although I teach African American literature, I sometimes organize informal reading groups on books beyond the direct subject of my field. After reading your book, I was so interested in the materials you covered and how you covered them that I designed a small discussion group (referred to it as a "mini-think tank" for fun) using _The Argument_ as the primary reading. The 10 or so participants and I really benefited from reading your work.

When I organized the group, I decided to give one of my extra copies of your book to my younger brother who's an undergraduate at a predominantly African American college. Over the course of the year, I'd often tell my brother, "hey, all these issues--ups and downs--with the Democratic Party were predicted in Matt Bai's book." I said it so much, I assumed he would've tuned me out. Turns out, I was wrong. The honors program at his college took submissions on a book that would be adopted for the fall's reading selection. He called me last night to say his submission was chosen, and so now the incoming class of honors students at his college will receive copies of _The Argument_. Thanks for producing this useful book.

Re: Capt John McCain, USN, 23 Missions Over NV, 6 Yr POW...Talk about warped assessments: "In private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that (Sen. John) McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world. During those years, McCain did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like (John) Kerry, (Jim) Webb and (Chuck) Hagel, who found themselves unable to recognize their enemy in the confusion of the jungle; (McCain) never underwent the conversion that caused Kerry, for one, to toss away some of his war decorations during a protest at the Capitol. Whatever anger McCain felt remained focused on his captors, not on his own superiors back in Washington." [Are you fucking clueless?]

I thoroughly enjoyed your book and learned alot. I find it facinating to read about recent history. It was personally interesting as I had met Tom Mattzie, am a long time member of MoveOn, went to a party for Tom Swan, and, at an AFSCME meeting in New Britain, CT, got to ask Lieberman a question. This was the gist of the question..."Is there something you know, that we don't know, some piece of important information that cannot be made public, about why we are in Iraq?" His response was "we have to fight the terrorists." Okay, a simple question, a simple answer. But then I went on....."of the 9/11 terrorists none of them were from Iraq". Lieberman: well we have to fight them, they are terrorists. Now, I may not be the smartest person but I do have a masters degree. When I persisted he seemed anxious. Really. For some reason I expected a more complete and intelligent response. He certainly never adequately answered the question. We heard from Ned Lamont first that evening and then Lieberman. AFSCME in CT decided to support Lieberman that night but only because historically he had been good for us. However, most of the board members said personally they were going to vote for Lamont. I think that in your book you were kind of easy on "Joe". It was interesting that Clinton was always referred to as, well, Clinton but Lieberman was Joe. That man can be mean and hard when confronted and that is how he responded to Mr. Lamont's attempt totake "his" Senate seat. I also think the reason Lieberman won was because the republicans in CT, knowing their guy hadn't a chance, voted for the next best thing. Mr. Lamont did not lose because the main item on his platform was the war.
Anyway, thank you so very much for this book. How did you do it? Either you take great notes, have an enormous tape recorder, or you just that type of mind that absorbs pretty much everything. However you do it, I am glad you do!

Generally I admire your political analysis and consider you a throwback to the Times commentators of a less partisan past who might be described as objective. However, I must take issue, in the broadest terms, with your article on McCain. Its strategy is to contextualize McCain's position concerning Iraq as rooted in his experience and the experience of his Senate colleagues who are, like him, veterans of Vietnam. This is suggested most succinctly in the question you pose toward the middle of the article: "Having bemoaned the impact of Vietnam on the nation, why is McCain—alone among the veterans of that war in the Senate—determined to settle in for another long and costly counterinsurgency?" Permit me to characterize your dubious answer: McCain, who was in prison, was not as keenly aware as they of the long and costly counterinsurgency. Thus your answer is implicitly psychological. However, this will not do, for you virtually ignore the real and most important context to be considered, that of McCain's Iraq doctrine vis-à-vis that of his opponents, especially Barack Obama.

Obama has said that the U.S. must disengage itself from Iraq (returning in small numbers should the need arise) in order to deal primarily with its more important, and presumably more real, enemies in Afghanistan and western Pakistan. I find the media's ignoring of the probable consequences of this plan disingenuous. Will more decisive military campaigns in Afghanistan and Waziristan, and defensive probes in Iraq, prove any less "long and costly [a] counterinsurgency?" Will they not prove even more costly, in blood and treasure, than the present stage of (really the same)conflict?

I see Obama supporters holding signs at a local intersection which ask drivers to honk their horns for peace, as if the equation Obama= Peace is a certainty. Though the media assiduously avoid seeing Obama in this light, I believe the opposite may prove to be true. It is worthwhile to remember that most of the wars of the 20th century were initiated (mostly with just cause) by Democratic Progressives (Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy/Johnson). But it may turn out that McCain's experience of Vietnam has made the maverick Republican a kind of genuine peace candidate.