McCain Strikes Fear into New "Axis of Evil"

Max Boot makes the case for John McCain in today's Los Angeles Times, and in so doing places the Arizona Senator's commanding national security strengths in stark relief.

Boot suggests that the conservative crackup over McCain's right-wing credentials misses a fundamental issue of campaign '08: how best to combat the forces of world evil arrayed against the United States and our allies.

Of particular concern is the "the new "axis of evil" - an updated three-part spector of terrorism in the likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria's Bashar Assad, and North Korea's Kim Jong Il, a dark trio currently threatening America's interests with "impunity."

Boot argues that the Bush administration has dropped the ball in confronting the group. McCain, on the other hand - in a presidency not bound by political baggage or lame-duck status - would truly strike fear into the heart of this anti-American alliance:

While visiting Iraq recently, I was told by U.S. military sources that an estimated 50 to 80 foreign jihadists a month are still infiltrating Iraq from Syria. They have simply changed their route from Anbar province, which has turned decisively against Al Qaeda, to further north in Salahaddin and Nineveh provinces. Moreover, Syria has become the headquarters of a new Iraqi Baathist party that is working with Al Qaeda to facilitate and finance attacks in Iraq. There is even evidence to indicate that Abu Ayyub Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, is hiding in Syria. For its part, Iran continues to train and support the Shiite "Special Groups" that are among the most vicious sectarian terrorists in the entire country, and to smuggle dangerous munitions for use against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both Iran and Syria are perfectly aware that the United States knows what they're up to. Administration officials, from the president on down, have warned them numerous times that their actions are unacceptable and must be stopped. Yet their subversion continues.

Clearly, these rogue regimes do not fear the consequences of waging a proxy war on America and our allies. They think they can get away with killing and maiming American soldiers -- and so far they have been right.

President Bush has not done enough to back up his threats against Iran and Syria, beyond pushing for economic sanctions of limited value at a time when oil is hitting $100 a barrel. The president has refused to authorize even limited special operations strikes on jihadist networks inside Syria or Iran.

This is part of a larger trend of Bush combining strong words with weak actions. The president talks of promoting democracy and supporting dissidents, but when he visited Egypt last month, he failed to publicly chide his host, Hosni Mubarak, for jailing the chief liberal opposition leader. This disconnect has done serious damage to American standing and credibility.

It is hard to see how Bush could reverse this decline in America's "fear factor" during the remaining year of his presidency. That will be the job of the next president. And who would be the most up to the task?

To answer that question, ask yourself which presidential candidate an Ahmadinejad, Assad or Kim would fear the most. I submit it is not Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee. In my (admittedly biased) opinion, the leading candidate to scare the snot out of our enemies is a certain former aviator who has been noted for his pugnacity and his unwavering support of the American war effort in Iraq. Ironically, John McCain's bellicose aura could allow us to achieve more of our objectives peacefully because other countries would be more afraid to mess with him than with most other potential occupants of the Oval Office -- or the current one.

Boot makes a compelling case for a vigorous foreign policy under a McCain administration. He establishes a sharp contrast between McCain and the two current Democratic frontrunners.

Both Clinton and Obama epitomize the pliable surrender platform of the Democratic Party's antiwar plank.

Clinton was for the war before she was against it, and still can't decide what she'd do to protect American interests in Iraq and the world beyond. Obama claims not only to have opposed the war from the start, but is one of the Democratic Party's biggest cheerleaders for failure in Iraq, right next to Harry Reid.

Last night I indicated how the Democratic Party's antiwar base has become increasingly unhinged over the congressional majority's failure to secure an immediate withdrawal on the war.

The MoveOn hordes and the unkempt Kos crowd will simply step-up their drumbeat of surrender as the general election campaign reaches full steam.

The Democratic nominee, if elected, will abandon whatever current, pre-election facade of internationalism and anti-terror firmness, ultimately opening arms to our rogue-regime enemies, placing the current gains in Iraq and against al Qaeda at risk.

Max Boot puts it well: McCain will be the go-to guy on securing peace through strength, a point conservatives may want to think about more clearly.

See more analysis at Memeorandum.