McCain & the Missiles of October

Here's a question Americans ought to ask themselves as they assess the presidential nominees and decide how to vote on November 4th: Where would we be today if the president during this week in 1962 had been JSM, instead of JFK? Or maybe the question should be: Would we be today if John McCain had been president during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Opinion surveys indicate that Americans believe that Sen. McCain would be a more effective commander in chief than his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama. As Obama has pulled away to a lrage overall lead and even bigger leads in many areas, McCain still has a lead on national security and terrorism. Many voters are attracted to McCain's quick, decisive, "don't look back" decision-making and fancy that someone who acts in that way will keep them secure.

But would it?

The experience of October 1962 strongly suggests otherwise.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi said of Sen. McCain in January of this year. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

In an age of weapons of mass destruction, cooler heads must prevail.

♦ ♦ ♦

"To be or not to be?"--that was the question John F. Kennedy faced in October 1962, to a degree no other president ever has.

Forty-six years ago today, on October 15, 1962, the CIA reported to National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy that a U-2 spy flight over Cuba had found Soviet missile sites being constructed there.

In the ensuing days, President Kennedy met with a small group of advisers and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss what to do about missile sites. The Chiefs all urged him, in essence, to shoot first and ask questions later. They wanted a massive air strike. Gen. Maxwell Taylor told the Commander in Chief that military action was essential to maintain American credibility. Air Force Chief Curtis LeMay dismissed a proposed blockade as Munich-like appeasement and threatened to go public with his criticism of Kennedy's weakness if the president did not endorse an air strike. "You gotta go in there and take out the goddamn thing," Marine Commandant David Shoup said after the meeting.

Nor were such bellicose recommendations confined to the military leaders around Kennedy. Most of the "wise men" the president had called together to counsel him in the crisis also urged him to launch an air strike.

Kennedy resisted those pressures and found something else to do about the nest of rattlesnakes the Soviets had exported to Cuba. After the meeting with the Joint Chiefs, he had told his aide Kenneth O'Donnell that if he did what the "brass hats" wanted him to do, "none of us will be alive later to tell them they were wrong."

"If anybody is around to write after this," the president said to his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, later in the month, "they are going to understand that we made every effort to give our adversary room to move. I am not going to push the Russians an inch beyond what is necessary."

John Kennedy's cool-headed, prudent, think-before-you-act approach to the Soviet challenge averted what would likely have been the calamitous results of the sort of quick, decisive decision-making and action that his military and many of his civilian advisers demanded.

The rest is history, as the saying goes; but had JFK not acted in the cautious manner that he did, the rest might have been not-history.

The bottom line on Kennedy's performance that October nearly a half century ago has been well stated by historian Robert Dallek as "an imperishable example of how one man prevented a catastrophe that may yet afflict the world."

♦ ♦ ♦

Had John S. McCain been sitting where John F. Kennedy sat in 1962, would he have played that heroic role in preventing catastrophe by resisting the "Bomb 'em now and worry about the consequences later" chorus? Would McCain do so under similar circumstances in the coming four years? All the evidence, including his own testimony on how he makes decisions, indicates that he would instead be leading that chorus.

"I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can," McCain wrote of decisions in his 2002 book, Worth the Fighting For. "Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint."

McCain is willing to live with the consequences of his hasty mistaken decisions. Are the rest of us?

The Republican nominee's impulsive, shoot-from-the-hip method of making decisions has been on display during the current campaign. Selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate after meeting her twice and without having had her vetted to any significant extent is a prime example of the McCain act-quickly-and-decisively; don't-think-about-it-much approach.

His impulsiveness has been evident in both his lurching back and forth on the condition of the economy (in a few days from "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" to "We are in the most serious crisis since World War II") and his proposals for what to do about it.

In August, at Pastor Rick Warren's religion forum, Sen. McCain was asked a question about how we should respond to evil. Without a moment's hesitation or thought, he responded: "Defeat it!"

Many viewer-voters, quite understandably, preferred such decisiveness to Barack Obama's thoughtful, nuanced answers.

Being decisive can be a good quality--up to a point. McCain, like the man he seeks to succeed and the woman he chose to be in a position to succeed him, suffers from what David Brooks has termed "brashness and excessive decisiveness."

John McCain is trigger happy; Sarah Palin is trigger ecstatic.

McCain loves to gamble. He especially loves shooting craps. A recent New York Times article recounted one night in 2000 when McCain "tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table" for hours. The piece accurately described him as "a lifelong gambler" who "takes risks, both on and off the craps table." Do Americans really want a commander in chief who likes to roll the dice with our future, even our very survival, as the stakes?

Last month George Will wrote of McCain's "impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events," his "impatience," his apparent lack of aptitude to engage in "calm reflection, and his "dismaying temperament." McCain, Will said, has quarrels rather than qualms.

Should John McCain be elected, we'll have more to fear than fear itself.

The horrible economy notwithstanding, the biggest issue of this election in the long run may be whether we will have a long run. This issue can summarized as: It's the judgment and temperament of the man with his finger on the button, stupid!

Promos for the 1973 film American Graffiti asked, "Where were you in '62?" There is strong reason to believe that it is a good thing for the world that John McCain's answer would not be, "in the White House."

{Historian Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts & Letters at Millsaps College. His latest book is Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America (Crown). He is currently at work on a book on America in the 1960s, Oh, Freedom! (Norton).}

Comments

[Floripondio]

So McCain was in a cockpit, with a Cuban target, waiting to take orders, almost 50 years ago.

How that equips him to decide what the orders should be in such circumstances now is a complete mystery to me.

[RRonin]

But he's a Maverick! And that Sarah Palin, ain't she a kick in the pants?

[TAIsabel]

As much as I fear his "trigger happy, mavericky" attitude when it comes to military agression, I think a victory for McCain will have far more horrible consequences and be the end of our standing in this now global village.

No one will ever respect the US again if, after the global pillaging, raping and plundering s--t storm we have created in the last 8 years, we again elect a Republican President. A worldwide poll conducted by The Economist (a conservative publication!!) found that 86% of the world, if allowed, would vote for Obama. The loss of worldwide support will be the last and final straw that breaks this now falling empire'sback.

[larstein]

When one learns about his post-POW rock star lifestyle - whoring, gambling and living large, it becomes obvious that this is the most dangerous man to ever run for President. A rational response toward McCain is absolute horror at the thought that his could be the finger on the button. He is 100 times more dangerous than Bush because he thrives on conflict, danger, and still thinks of himself as a 25 year old flat head. If he wins, it's nuclear war within one year. He's perfectly capable of blowing up the world and regretting it later.

[TheAntiSheep]

"Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint."

That's a lot easier to do when the consequences aren't measured in mega-deaths.

On the flip side, it's hard to complain about anything much when you've been vaporized.

[BeeFactual]

AGREED--guess what--this already occurred--REMEMBER--"We are ALL Georgians now"--they did this to give Johnny Mac his foreign policy creds--but America yawned.

Putin made the claim that some inside the WH or JMc's campaign hoodwinked the Georgians into striking their outlaw areas, (to help John win the election), thereby incurring the wrath of Russia, but CNN and the other alphabets refused to print his assertions.

Anyway, this is all fodder for discussion--GET OUT THE VOTE!!!!

Obama/Biden08--and may God Bless their guidance

[JPHR]

Rolling Stone had a lot more factual and even more disturbing article on McCain:

Make-Believe Maverick
A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty

[shel3364]

EXCELLENT analysis. If this type of "WW-JSM-D" during a critical moment in our history makes people stop and think for just a moment, you have done you job, sir.

Hope you don't mind if I send this to a few of my friends & members of my family.

[Robert S. McElvaine - Huffpost Blogger]

Mind? Of course not. I'd like to see it spread as widely as possible.

[peterg76]

McCain could not have negotated. He would never have understood that Soviet missiles in Cuba was not really such an unreasonable reponse to US missiles in Turkey.

[nutty4tahoe]

If JFK had been president in 2003 we would not currently be embroiled in the Iraq disaster. If Obama had been president in 2003 we would not currently be embroiled in the Iraq disaster.

If McCain had been president in 2003, however, we would probably be at war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Spain.

Why the majority of people polled say they trust McCain more on foreign policy is a total mystery to me. The man's a hothead. His military record shows it. His senatorial record shows it. His personal life shows it. He himself admits it. If we thought George W. Bush sucked at foreign policy, just imagine what we'd have with McCain. It gives me cold chills thinking about it.....

[justobserve]

With McCain's erratic actions during the Georgia- Russia clash and the economic meltdown, It's a mystery if anyone still voted for his leadership in national security and terrorism. Are those voters so gullible not to know how dangerous McCain's behavior as shown by his records would be? Are they just like Palin who said that she had nothing to lose by attacking Obama and incited hatred? Her ignorance showed she didn't think of the effects such actions could lead our country backward to where we had fought against with blood, courage and tears for so long . McCAIN-2008 AND SARAH & TODD PALIN: ETHICS VIOLATORS, POWER ABUSERS, PATHOLOGICAL LIARS, CRONYISM.

[lvdragonlady]

"how we should respond to evil. Without a moment's hesitation or thought, he responded: "Defeat it!"
He needs to read up on his history. Evil is NEVER defeats, it is just relocated from point a to point b.
Who does he think he is, to say defeat evil? Jesus, I do not think so and no one but Jesus can defeat evil and that will be on God's timetable not man's.

[rodhemeon]

The ''High School Bully'' and the ''Cheerleader''........................................
''As Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States''
Palin the ''Maverick'' grabs her shotgun....If she and McCain begin to spiral downward in the polls....as they will.......The rich and powerful may very likely create a major international military incident.....To allow John McCain to come to the rescue............

Republican or Democrat....
You will feel a cold chill running down your spine....as McCain and
Palin assume control of the nuclear trigger.

[sunnyjane]

I remember that day very well. I was a senior in high school and getting ready to practice for the senior play. It took our English teacher, who had also written and directed the play, to tell us what our parents either did not understand or were not ready to explain to us. Remember, this was 1963, and TV coverage was not what it is today.

I still remember the feeling of dread as our teacher explained the consequences of the seriousness of this problem. No, we did NOT practice that night, we merely listened to our outstanding teacher give us the real nitty-gritty of the situation.

We should all be forever grateful that President John F. Kennedy was at the helm that night. Had it been an Eisenhower, a Nixon, or a Bush, we would all be either speaking Russian and have no freedoms whatsoever, or we would be dead.

I believe that Barack Obama will have the same steadiness that JFK had during that awful time. God help us if McCain or Palin is guiding the USS America during a time of crisis such as this was.

Obama '08

[DQKennard]

Given the coincidence of the date, I'd love to see a question in the debate tonight about it. An example of a "Commander In Chief" problem. What would they do in a similar situation. Let 'em talk about it, then follow up (if they haven't addressed this aspect) with the information that's come out only recently that indicates the preparations/arming was much further along than thought at the time. The rationale of "hit them hard!" was to eliminate the site *before* it was a threat, but it now seems it was *already* a threat.
Parallels could be drawn (by Obama) to McCain's instant simplistic response to the complex Georgia problem. A response that was of course ready because of McCain's natural tendency toward conflict, because his chief foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann is/was a lobbyist for Georgia, and because McCain and Scheunemann had both only recently assured the Georgian President of our support, encouraging him to attempt to regain control of Ossetia.

[Robert S. McElvaine - Huffpost Blogger]

I, too, would like this question raised at the debate, which is why I chose today as the day to post the article. It's really the most important question to be asked, and not only on this anniversary. Anyone have a line to Bob Schieffer?