HOW I SEE IT: McCain is best to lead American troops

The role of commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces is one of the main constitutional duties of the president. This role involves the dynamic of national military policy and military strategy.

Changes in either side of the dynamic require adjustment in the other part. In evaluating the current candidates for president it is crucial to take a hard look at which one best is able to deal with these requirements. The war in Iraq is the most logical point for comparison.

Sen. McCain supported the decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. He also kept track of progress on the ground during six visits to the country instead of relying on briefings back home.

Using his contacts within the military and knowledge gained at the National War College, he began calling for a change in strategy before President Bush was prepared to change. Once the president decided to implement a “surge” in troop levels, Sen. McCain supported that change when other senators were in a panic over their re-election possibilities. The undeniable success of the surge in reducing violence in Iraq has given that country a chance to become whole and make progress toward solving its many internal disputes.

Sen. McCain demonstrated a policy-oriented national focus and support for an important goal in the overall war on terror. He had the foresight to realize the overall strategy in 2006 was failing and to push hard for change. He displayed courage in propping up his weaker col-leagues in the Senate during the period after the first Petraeus report.

He understands the strategy-policy dynamic and is steadfast in focusing on national needs in spite of the personal consequences to his campaign. 

Sen. Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein from power. This opposition was formulated as a political strategy to get to the left of his competition in the Democratic primaries. It forms the core rationale of his campaign for president. He also claims to have superior judgment based on his opposition to the war.

Sen. Obama claimed the strategic change brought about by the Anbar Awakening resulted from Democratic election victories in 2006 when the events actually took place before the election.

He voted against the surge in 2007, claiming that it would fail and lead to more casualties. He claimed the strategic changes resulting from the awakening had nothing to do with the U.S. military or the action by the Iraqi government to deal with the Mahdi Army in Basra and elsewhere. He has said he would vote against the surge again, even given the advance knowledge that it would succeed. He was wrong on every occasion, damaging his claim to superior judgment.

Sen. Obama, if elected, wants to order a withdrawal of forces from Iraq, choosing a 16-month deadline. This date is related to the anniversary of the invasion, not to conditions on the ground at the time. His decisions exclude the participation of the military commanders. He is unfamiliar with the strategy-policy dynamic and shows no signs of wanting to learn about it. His decisions and policy statements exclude consideration of the consequences of his actions. In short, he is manifestly unfit for the commander in chief job.

This is really no contest. Sen. McCain is the best candidate for this role.

Arthur Drennan is a resident of Lakota.