Stuart Koehl has an excellent piece up at the Weekly Standard on a Washington Post article that characterized the Army’s Stryker combat vehicle as a “kevlar coffin.” Koehl’s not an unmitigated supporter of the Stryker, but his main point is that criticism of the Stryker’s ability to protect infantry in Afghanistan is misinformed in ways both obvious and subtle.
The first and more obvious point is that the Post provides no information about the number of injuries and fatalities sustained by troops in Strykers as compared with past alternatives, and appears to proceed on the assumption that every Stryker “lost” is a Stryker that has been totally destroyed instead of one sent to the shop. Without this, it’s hard to know just how well or poorly the Stryker is actually doing.
The second and more subtle point is that some of the destroyed Strykers hit IEDs that were as large as 2,000 pounds. At that size, even a main battle tank would not protect its occupants. As Koehl notes, if it becomes a pure race between the armor makers –- who have to design vehicles that are actually useable –- and an undisturbed network of bomb makers with access to unlimited quantities of explosives, the bomb makers will win every time.
The U.S. has seen this kind of criticism before: it’s reminiscent of the up-armored Humvee “scandal” of 2004-05. As with that incident, the brief burst of criticism of the Stryker combines a bit of commonsense — yes, of course the U.S. and its allies should seek to provide their forces with ample quantities of the best equipment — with a lot of disguised criticism of the administration.
Now this administration deserves to be criticized. As Con Coughlin and Fraser Nelson point out in the latest Spectator, the Obama administration’s dithering isn’t just hurting the U.S. cause; it’s treating its allies — especially Britain – with “astonishing disregard.” But in the U.S., and especially in Britain, the criticism has tended to focus too much on equipment. In the U.S., it’s the Stryker and the Humvee; in Britain, it’s the British Army’s
shortage of helicopters and mine-resistant vehicles.
It’s certainly true that the British Army could use more of both. But as Koehl points out, “the solution to the IED problem is not technical, but rather tactical and operational.” In other words, since you can’t win the battle with the bomb makers by building an invulnerable vehicle, you have to win it by fighting a counterinsurgency campaign. If you control the ground, protect the people, and gather intelligence, you win not by beefing up your armor, but by making it impossible for the bomb makers to make and plant bombs.
Criticizing the supposed failures of the equipment is an easy way to make the correct point that the government is getting it wrong. But it has a serious cost: it encourages administrations on both sides of the Atlantic to respond to the criticism as a short-term political issue simply by rush-ordering more equipment, while neglecting the more serious problem of how to fight the war effectively. By all means, criticize the Obama and Brown administrations on Afghanistan. but if the criticism is to serve anything more than a political purpose, it needs to proceed from a realization that even the best equipment can’t rescue bad strategy.
“John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most “electable” Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole did not lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.” –Ann Coulter
“If nominated, John McCain will destroy the Republican Party.”- Rush Limbaugh
“Florida will be the beginning of the end of Juan McLame’s career of fighting for amnesty, teaming up with liberals against tax cuts, giving your social security away to illegals and being the single biggest backstabber to the conservative movement.”- Me
Let us count McCain’s “conservative credentials”:
-he wrote the bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants (co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy)
-he voted to give your social security money to illegal immigrants
-he voted against the Bush tax cuts multiple times (he has since flip-flopped and has campaigned as a lifelong tax-cutter)
-he routinely engages in Democratic class warfare against big companies in America
-as recently as December 2007 he admitted “he does not know the economy very well” and needed to get better at it
-he wrote the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that was declared to be an unconstitutional infringement of the 1st Amendment (co-sponsored by ultra-liberal Democrat Russ Feingold)
-he was called the “worst 2nd amendment candidate” by the president of the NRA
-wrote a bill (co-sponsored by his buddy Lieberman) imposing a massive tax on energy which, according to the Heritage Foundation, would drastically raise the price of gasoline and put many US companies out of business
-supports radical global warming legislation which involved him voting with every Democrat
-he joined forces with Democrats (“Gang of 14”) to block the Senate Republican’s attempt to confirm conservative, strict constructionist judges
-he joined liberals to fight against a federal marriage amendment supporting the institution of traditional marriage
-campaigning in 2000, he famously described Christian leaders as “agents of intolerance”
-he filed an amicus brief against pro-life advocates in Wisconsin
-he met with leading Democrats in 2004 to discuss the possibility of being John Kerry’s Vice-President
-with most of these positions, unfortunately, McCain hasn’t flip-flopped and vows to fight for these liberal causes as president
-if I wanted to elect a Democrat, I would vote for Hillary or Obama
Let us now look at some of his endorsements:
-New York Times
-Geraldo Rivera
-Joe Lieberman
-Bill and Hillary Clinton
-nearly every member of the liberal media (most Newspapers have endorsed him for this very reason, phrasing his strength as an ability to “attract the support of liberals”)
If you are a Republican, do not let the most liberal elements of the media tell you who to vote for and who is “electable”. Electability polls fluctuate wildly every week (+16 this very week in favor of Romney). A recent example: Bob Dole was considered far and away the “most electable” Republican because he was respected by Democrats and because of his military service.
Voters in Florida and around the country, if you are a conservative, consider whether McCain’s career record of liberal positions and ineptitude is actually the best you can hope for. Consider if he is the most electable candidate even if many prominent conservatives have vowed to “sit out” this election if he’s the nominee.
Spread the word to other conservatives before the liberals on TV and in the newspapers steal this election away from the conservative movement (lower taxes, stronger families, stronger military, no amnesty).
So apparently McCain is really good at making back-door dealings. Isn’t it great when you see fellow politicians in power helping them stay that way. McCain has made his political career by selling out conservative ideas and making deals with people who couldn’t care less for the conservative movement. If we really want to see some conservative changes in Washington it starts by first saying no to republicans who only care about power. McCain-Feingold was just that – virtually making it impossible to win against incumbents (unless you are a millionaire – it is McCain’s fault we only see incumbents and millionaires running for offices anymore).
The Clintons fall from the same tree. They only care about their own power and keeping it. The Clintons and McCain both will say and do anything to win, and they have shown that during their whole political careers. In this way you have to like Obama and Romney. They don’t have 20+ years of dealings with Washington insiders. That is why no one likes Romney, because he doesn’t owe anyone anything in the beltway. They don’t trust him because they don’t have control over him. McCain has already sold out to that establishment.
I’m tired of electing politicians that say they will uphold to conservative values and they don’t. What is even more ridiculous is supporting a candidate who clearly has no regard for conservative thought like McCain. If McCain is the nominee, I will have to vote for the democrat. The republican party will deserve to wander in the wilderness until they find someone who upholds conservative thought. If I want more regulation, more government, and ridiculous legislation I will vote for a democrat – they are far better at it. At least then, democrats get the blame when it goes south.
Please republicans, support a ‘conservative’. We will accomplish much more in furthering that cause by supporting someone who is conservative, than by trying to placate the electorate with a so-called moderate who will sell out the party in a second’s notice.
Dan…
This statement sounds a like a pre-prepared statement/pitch to inappropriately influence online readers… (possibly being paid for this?) and I don’t believe helpful in identifying the best candidate.
I’m a “on the fence” Republican. I see the pros and cons of all the candidates. McCain has his positives and negatives, but though not a 100% conservative on ALL issues is definitely not a liberal… and references to McCain being a similar candidate to Obama/Clinton shows a one-sided view.
I have issues with McCain as a candidate such as age, concerns about his initial position on immigration, and his working relationship with Ted Kennedy. I’m not sure about his temper, but believe that he is a conservative Republican (small government, individual responsibility, fiscal discipline, pro-life, etc.). I’m OK with his position on global warming and also allowing states to buy drugs on the open free market to keep costs down. I also do believe that he will protect our country and will be a strong leader.
I see Romney as better at handling the economy and a good business leader. I’m not concerned about his religion nor his foreign policy (though its obvious McCain is better here). However, I am concerned about his character and if I can truly believe what he says. His statements to Michigan on a federal bailout to save jobs in Michigan and the ending all payroll taxes for senior citizens sound very much like big government saving the day… to me. This also seems like a strong liberal position. This links my concern about what he actually stands for.
In terms of the other candidates, I don’t believe they are viable.
I’m interested in hearing other balanced views as this is definitely going to be a tough decision: McCain vs. Romney…
Joe – I can’t see voting for a Democrat in the Fall. I think its crazy but I guess you are trying to make a point.
When I read such postings, I always question does being a Republican require me to be 100% conservative on all issues? Do I need to be in 100% sync with Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter to be Republican? I still believe that we can win in the Fall, but are going to need a heck of a large tent and bring the fiscal, social, and foreign policy Republicans together…
I’m sorry, but gotta make one more comment…
Forget the MSM for now, but his support by T. Colburn, H. Kissinger, P. Gramm, Swartzkoff, and a long list of Reagan Republicans seems to say that he’s a good “conservative” Republican… I see in other posts that his voting record is 80 something percentage conservative by a 3rd party conservative organization. Anyhow, all this tells me that its not a cut and dry issue… and I don’t believe in the posts denigrating good Republicans such as the ones mentioned above… although they stated their support for one Republican candidate over another.
Is there a study about Romney and his Republican record? Would like to discuss pros and cons on specific issues.
Hey Brad, Romney did not call for a bailout of the auto industry. This perception is again based upon lazy reporting and lazy listening. What he called for was an investment in Energy and Research developement into new thechnology to build better cars and/or create new industry/jobs. As far as getting seniors to stop payroll taxes, since when ii it liberal to want to lessen the tax burden? He’d also like to get the majority of Americans under $200K income to save TAX Free! That’s afresh idea. Of course all these have to packaged and pushed through the Congress, however all I know about McCains Economic plan is that he’s got Gramm, Rudman, Kemp backing him and sat on the commerce comittee. Hardly stirring stuff.
McCain ids the “Gold Watch” candidate and the insiders are backing him now to get better jobs should he win. Romney is the outsider and as he said in the debate Thursday “I Won’t Owe You.” which McShame won’t be able to say and which is why they hate Mitt.
McCain supporters have been using the Senator’s 82.5 “lifetime rating” with the American Conservative Union as one way to defend him. Over at “The Corner” on National Review.com, one of his fans, Ramesh Ponnuru, has listed McCain’s ACU rating, by year, in this decade:
2000: 81
2001: 68
2002: 78
2003: 80
2004: 72
2005: 80
2006: 65
This is an average of about 75, and for some years signifcantly below that number. Earlier in his career, McCain’s voting record was more conservative. I don’t think anyone who opposes him now would deny that.
Doug – I agree Romney stated the support was for R&D, but to increase to $20 billion, from $4 billion, sounds like a big commitment to one industry. I’m concerned that other suffering industries would ask for the same support. (As you can tell, I’m not a supporter of farm subsidies… I believe free market should be allowed to have its influence with only some “influence” by the federal government.).
If I stop payroll taxes for seniors, wouldn’t other demographics ask for this? Seems a bit drastic… I would agree on LOWER (not none) taxes for seniors… also I agree tax-free savings is a good idea by Romney.
I’m not fully understanding your point on McCain’s economic plan, but I understand McCain will continue Bush’s cuts (though he initially voted no since it didn’t have spending cuts), and does support an incentives in R&D… just maybe not as high? I know there’s a question on McCain’s commitment to tax cuts and he’s seen as a flip-flopper because of it… however, I do know he’s not going to increase taxes… and that he will reduce spending. I guess the issue is do the 3 issues have to be intertwined? (cut taxes, no new taxes, spending reduction).
What’s a “Gold Watch” candidate?
Rasmussen reports that Mitt Romney’s lead over John McCain has increased to six percentage points:
“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney earning 33% of the vote while Arizona Senator John McCain attracts 27%. The poll was conducted Saturday afternoon before Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced his endorsement of McCain and the race is fluid enough that both men have a realistic chance of winning on Tuesday. Rasmussen Markets data showed that expectations for a McCain victory rose following the Crist announcement.”
http://tinyurl.com/339zhr
Could Governor Crist’s endorsement of McCain make a difference? I don’t think so. Still, I am only willing to bet $10 on Romney—and not my life savings. This contest has become a nail biter.
The thing i don’t like about JMac is his snarly attitude, which is just below the veneer, but comes out when he is challanged. Tells me about the man. I wonder about the “Captain Queeg” personality.
Romney, on the other hand, is a sunny optimist, forward looking and arguing for a bright future. McCain is angry and hostile. And grumpy. Not a nice guy if you cross him.
As we have learned, he is not above lying and mud fighting. The “Gold Watch” idea suggests a guy who put in his 30 years, and is being sent out, with thanks for his service, into well deserved retirement.
Gulp, I spoke too soon. Another Rasmussen poll has just come out placing both McCain and Romney at 27%:
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows a two-man race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. John McCain and Mitt Romney are tied for the lead at 27% and no one else is close.”
McCain’s appointment of Dr. Juan Hernandez as his Hispanic Outreach Director puts a end to any possibility I will believe anything that comes out of McCain’s mouth.
McCain said he now ‘get’s it’ about securing the border and curbing illegal immigration yet he appoints to his staff a man who has made statements such as:
“I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.”
And:
“We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.”
He has also stated that he considers California to be part of Mexico.
I will not vote for nor promote a man for President who will not stand up for our national sovereignty. I guess John will have to go back to calling us who want secure borders “chicken shit racist, bigots, and xenophobes”, that should win him lots of votes.
Herbert -
Appreciate the “Gold Watch” description.
Yep, I kinda worry about McCain’s demeanor also. Wonder what happens behind close doors between Senators when they are negotiating a bill? Does McCain yell alot? Is he irrational? or is it just once in awhile in public view? To certain individuals who to whom he has distain, it’s pretty clear and its hard for him to hide. Not exactly sure if that’s a good characteristic for a leader.
McCain obviously has more military / foreign experience (although I was interested to find that Romney has visited many foreign countries in recent years in order to broaden his knowledge of international cultures). Romney obviously has more economic experience (and McCain even admitted that before denying that he admitted it). It is also obvious that Romney is vastly more intelligent than McCain. Romney graduated from both the Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School (at the same time no less), and Romney graduated in the top 5% of that prestigious school. McCain may not be a liberal, but recently he has not only taken liberal positions, but he has taken a LEADERSHIP role on liberal schemes (McCain / Feingold, Amnesty, gang of 14). Romney has been hugely successful in everything he has done. I think Romney is the best candidate in the field.
John –
Fair statements…
I agree on the education and the economic points… Romney definitely has that and alteratively McCain does have more military/foreign experience… and its clear we can’t merge the 2 as neither will be asking the other to join their ticket.
Again, I have issues with both candidates and with McCain in several areas… however, I’m not in agreement with many of the “true” conservative positions that you’ve stated. For example:
- Campaign Finance Reform… I’m OK with trying to reduce the power of money influence in Politics… its a poison in our system. (Note… reduce, not end as that’s truly impossible).
- Immigration… I believe McCain initially missed the boat and should have focused on closing the borders first… but now he is. I’m also too much a pragmatist to believe “kick them all out” will work, but I don’t want to open this discussion further for now…
- Gang of 14… I’m not a “social conservative.”… I’m a fiscal conservative… and therefore, I’m OK with the compromise of getting John Roberts into the supreme court and having the ability to filibuster judicial nominees in the future. (Republicans might need it to stop “overly liberal” judges one day)…
I know Republicans… like me, who take such positions are being vilified by “true conservatives” but that still doesn’t make me change my thoughts (though I’m still open) or make me believe I’m not a good Republican.
Any insight on Romney’s specific programs/initiatives beyond his success at the Salt Lake City Olympics? I’ve gotten confusing messages on his (positive or negative) policies as governor in Mass.