Explore Candidates → President → John McCain on Iraq and Foreign Policy
John McCain
on
Iraq and Foreign Policy
- Abortion and Birth Control
- Civil Liberties and Domestic Security
- Crime and Punishment
- Education
- Environment and Energy
- Gay Rights
- Government and Elections
- Gun Control
- Health Care
- Immigration
- Internet and Media
- Iraq and Foreign Policy
- Medical Marijuana and Drug Policy
- Religion and Public Life
- Science
- Social Security
- Taxes and Budget
- Trade and Economics
"We need to strengthen our transatlantic alliance as the core of a new global compact – a League of Democracies – that can harness the great power of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests. At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. We Americans recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we must pay “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe that international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must also be willing to be persuaded by them."
From a 2001 article on McCain's Senate website: "In this dangerous environment, the U.S. must be willing to act alone, not only in Iraq but in North Korea, if necessary. While other nations 'may risk their own populations, the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people,' [McCain] wrote in January. 'And spare us the usual lectures about American unilateralism.'"
"We need to work together with our allies, but at the end of the day, it's the United States that will make the final decision. In January of 1981, Ronald Reagan came to power and raised his hand as president of the United States of America. By more than coincidence, the Iranian hostages returned on that same day. I would employ some of his methods."
2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007
Q: When do you think the United States has an obligation to intervene to prevent genocides. Mr. McCain: When it goes on and we can find an effective way to stop it – or even, if we can, if have the prescience we can try to stop it before it happens. That’s not very easy, obviously. We have to have effective ways of addressing genocide. I know what you are leading to and that is Darfur, where Colin Powell, a man who I admire as much as any man in the world, person in the world, declared genocide in Darfur several years ago. I think our challenge has been – and I think from my conversations with Secretary Powell – that this is accurate, that because of the complexities of the situations and the inabilities to identify exactly what courses of action need to be taken, coupled with the other problems – either the inability or unwillingness of other African states to be as involved as we’d like them to be in this very complex situation. But I think we should not give up our efforts to stop the genocides that is going on in Darfur. And I would exercise every possibility and consult with whoever it is and try to address the issue of genocide. Finally, let me add one other aspect to this. You’ve got to have the support of the American people in whatever you do as well. I think Americans would support action – I know Americans would support action – but it would have to be explained to them and tell them exactly how we’re going to succeed in stopping genocide and that is a plague not only the United States but our European friends allies and the world: How do you effectively address the situation in Darfur. Q: Part of your view of government would be that if it sees an ongoing genocidal situation and believes there is a way to end it and it has the support of the American people, you believe it is part of our obligation to do something about it. Mr. McCain: If you can address it effectively. In other words, the unfortunate – the downside could be that you send in a force, they don’t succeed in stopping the genocide, Americans than say look, it’s not working get out, than the ultimate situation is worse than if went in. That is what I have concern about in the scenario. Look, Republican, Democrats, Liberal, Conservatives have all announced unequivocally that we will never allow a second Holocaust. That has been a public statement of every president since Harry Truman.
Q: Would you intervene militarily if human rights abuses were at stake? A: There are times when our principles are so offended that we have to do what we can to resolve a terrible situation. If Rwanda again became a scene of horrible genocide, if there was a way that the US could stop. But we can never say that a nation driven by Judeo-Christian principles will only intervene where our interests are threatened because we also have values. If genocide is allowed, the consequences later are more severe.
GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000
"American leadership is also needed on North Korea. We must use the leverage available from the U.N. Security Council resolution passed after Pyongyang's 2006 nuclear test to ensure the full and complete declaration, disablement and irreversible dismantlement of its nuclear facilities, in a verifiable manner, which we agreed to with the other members of the six-party talks. We must reinvigorate the trilateral coordination process with Japan and South Korea. And we must never squander the trust of our allies and the respect for our highest office by promising that the president will embark on an open-ended, unconditional personal negotiation with a dictator responsible for running an international criminal enterprise, a covert nuclear weapons program and a massive system of gulags."
By the coming decade, he [McCain] said, the United States could face '"a fundamentally new strategic situation: a rogue state such as Iraq or North Korea, with the ability, in time of crisis to use nuclear blackmail against an American president." He called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," not simply to contain such governments but to drive them from power by helping opposition groups.
Q: What's the concern you have about Iran, and about, in particular, Ahmadinejad? Some people want to meet with him. He’s not on your agenda this trip. A: The day I meet with the president of Iran will be the day after he announces his country no longer is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel, the day after they stop exporting these most lethal explosives into Iraq...
Q: What area of international policy would you change immediately? A: Our policies concerning rogue states: Iraq, Libya, North Korea-those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. I'd institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments.
GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000
"I intend to make unmistakable clear to Iran that we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the stat of Israel as its fondest wish, and pledges undying enmity to the United States to posses the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions."
Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has described himself as "proudly pro-Israel." Like Giuliani and Hunter, McCain argues that there can be no peace process "until the Palestinians recognize Israel, forswear forever the use of violence, recognize their previous agreements, and reform their internal institutions." McCain says he would be willing to use military force against Iran if it attains a nuclear weapon and poses a "real threat" to Israel. He also believes the United States should continue to provide Israel with "whatever military equipment and technology she needs to defend herself." He has said that if elected president, he would "work to further isolate the enemies of Israel" like Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, and he would "never pressure Israel to make concessions to states or movements committed to its destruction." McCain said Israel's military action in Lebanon in 2006 was justified. McCain cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.
"My administration will press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, to legalize all political parties, labor unions, and free media, and to schedule internationally monitored elections. The embargo must stay in place until these basic elements of democratic society are met."
Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has typically voted in support of sanctions on Cuba. In 1992, he cosponsored the Cuban Democracy Act. In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, McCain said that upon Castro's death, the United States should 'offer a package of trade, of assistance, of economic development, of assistance in democratization--and tell them we will give them all of those things and in return we are asking them to embark on the path to democracy. Including setting a date for free and fair elections.'
"Q: Should we appropriate $300 million out of the surplus to help fight AIDS in Africa? A: I would do anything in my power to stop this terrible affliction. But we have corrupt governments; we have organizations that don't treat the people. So before I spent our taxpayers' money on that, I would have to make sure that it would go to the recipients and those of these poor people who are afflicted with this terrible disease. Frankly, in a lot of parts of Africa today, I do not have that confidence."
GOP Debate in Michigan Jan 10, 2000
Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion.
H.R. 2606 Conference Report; Bill H.R. 2606 ; vote number 1999-312 on Oct 6, 1999
"We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies. This would not be like the universal-membership and failed League of Nations' of Woodrow Wilson but much more like what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace. The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur...This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations. It would complement them."
Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has generally supported U.S. engagement with the United Nations but has noted the recent oil-for-food scandal and faulty human rights institutions demonstrate a "crying need for reform." In a 1999 lecture at Kansas State University, McCain said, "The United Nations, although many of its founding principles were borrowed from our own, can never be an adequate substitute for American leadership. It has its uses, but to confer on that diverse organization, the leading responsibility for international stability, freedom and justice, will quickly render it incapable of any task whatsoever." On the 2004 Congressional National Political Awareness Test, McCain said the United States should continue its financial support for the United Nations, and should contribute troops to UN peacekeeping missions.
While Bush has said he does not want to reduce U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals below 1,700 to 2,200 deployed strategic nuclear weapons, McCain suggested he would seek a new agreement with lower targets, but did not give a precise figure.
"At the same time, we must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies. But I will seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest possible number, consistent with our security requirements and global commitments. Today we deploy thousands of nuclear weapons. It's my hope to move as rapidly as possible to a significantly smaller force."
In Waukee, Iowa on 6/8/07 McCain said that he would not reduce our nuclear arsenal to 1,000 weapons, but did not say that he would not reduce at all.
Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels.
Motion to table Kerrey Amdt #395; Bill S. 1059 ; vote number 1999-149 on May 26, 1999
Q: The Iraqi Parliament wants it [a timetable for US withdrawal], and a majority in the Congress want it, then why do you say, "No, you can't have it?" A: Because it's my job to give my best estimate to the American people, no matter what the political calculations may be, as to what's the best in our nation's national security interest. It's also my obligation to tell the American people and my constituents in Arizona that I represent, what the consequences of failure will be; and I believe they will be catastrophic.
Meet the Press: Meet the Candidates 2008 series May 13, 2007
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007
Kerry Amendment to National Defense Authorization Act; Bill S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766 ; vote number 2006-181 on Jun 22, 2006
"They [foreign policy experts] say, if you set a date for withdrawal then the consequences are catastrophic."
"We are now succeeding in Iraq and Americans, at least I believe, are in significant numbers agreeing that the present strategy of the surge is succeeding and they want us to succeed."
It [the surge] is working. No, not "apparently"; it's working. It's working because we've got a great general. We've got a good strategy. The Maliki government is not doing the things we want it to do, the police are not functioning the way we want them to do, but we are succeeding.
2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007
Q: It's written into the law right now benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet. It is also very clear that they are not going to meet those benchmarks by September. If they fail, will you still continue to support the surge? A: Of course. They are making progress & we are winning on the ground. And there are political solutions being arrived at all over Iraq today, not at the national level.
2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007
Q: The Economist magazine's intelligence unit say: "Unless their mission is very well-defined, 20,000 troops are probably too few to make a significant difference. Adding around 20,000 to the 132,000 currently there will increase US capabilities, but not enough to stabilize the country." You agree with that? A: I am concerned about it, whether it is sufficient numbers or not. I would have liked to have seen more. I looked General Petraeus in the eye and said, "Is that sufficient for you to do the job?" He assured me that he thought it was and that he had been told that if he needed more he would receive them.
Meet the Press: Meet the Candidates 2008 series Jan 21, 2007
Q: Would you be happy - we've been there to help get them democracy started. But would you be happy with that being the home of a U.S. garrison, like Guantanamo or Germany all those years, where we have 50,000 troops permanently stationed in that country? A: No. I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff. Q: But you've heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I've heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German - the North Korean - the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it? A: I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence.
Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John McCain vowed in meetings with Iraq's prime minister Monday that the U.S. would maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq until al-Qaida is defeated there.
Q: President Bush has talked about us being in Iraq for 50 years.... A:...maybe 100. We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me as long as Americans are not being harmed or injured or killed. Then it's fine with me... Q: Would you have permanent bases? A: If that seems to be necessary in some respects, it depends on the threat.
After asking multiple times if McCain supports an "open-ended, unconditional commitment," "perpetual war" and "permanent bases" in Iraq, McCain said, "No, not forever, but certainly, you would be there for a long period of time in a support role in many ways." When asked if that meant 30 or 40 years, McCain said, "Oh, I don't know."
Senator John McCain, a Republican contender in the 2008 presidential race, refused to be drawn on a Korea-type timeline for US forces to stay in Iraq. "But I could see us in a training and advisory capacity for a long time," he told ABC.
"We're not going to have more troops. I'd love to see -- I wish we had the size of Army and Marine Corps and Guard that we could send more troops… But I think that we have to now tighten up on the rules, regulations, accountability, et cetera. You know, many of these 'Blackwater' -- there are many contractors -- are guarding Iraqi government officials. If you want to remove them, who's going to provide for their security? But it's sad and it's tragic that these things are happening."
"I’m telling you, when you start out with false principles and false practices, you pay a heavy price for a long time… [B]ecause we didn’t have enough troops on the ground, we had to hire the contract guys, and when we had to hire the contract guys, then it became an attractive option for men and women who are incredibly talented, Special Forces, SEALS, etc. Problems lead to problems."
"We do whatever we can to reduce costs to the taxpayers. And if there are functions that can be outsourced, we ought to do them. If there are others that lend [themselves] only to military functions and duties that can only be performed by military personnel, then those should not be. I remember the big flap when we took security from the base and did it through contracts. It was going to be the end of Western civilization as we know it. Somehow it’s turned out OK."
"We've got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan, but I'm confident...that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops - and by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 23,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more."
"If I'm elected president I'll turn around the war in Afghanistan just as we have turned around the war in Iraq with a comprehensive strategy for victory. I know how to do that. That strategy will have several components. Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades. Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them."
"What happens in Iraq will also affect Afghanistan. There has been progress in Afghanistan: over two million refugees have returned, the welfare of Afghan citizens has meaningfully improved, and historic elections took place in 2004. The Taliban's recent resurgence, however, threatens to lead Afghanistan to revert to its pre-9/11 role as a sanctuary for terrorists with global reach. Our recommitment to Afghanistan must include increasing NATO forces, suspending the debilitating restrictions on when and how those forces can fight, expanding the training and equipping of the Afghan National Army through a long-term partnership with NATO to make it more professional and multiethnic, and deploying significantly more foreign police trainers. It must also address the current political deficiencies in judicial reform, reconstruction, governance, and anticorruption efforts."