Opinion: McCain:Foreign Policy Expert?

Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will tell you a little bit about experience. In fact, most military members can probably give a well versed explanation on Middle Eastern culture and history, because we have lived it. I have served in both countries and understand the dynamics involved in each region, as well as surrounding regions. As war planners and leaders, I would expect our commanders to know this as well. In fact, I would expect them to be more knowledgeable than me on these subjects. As the Commander in Chief, it’s a requirement, not an expectation. You simply cannot dictate war and peace without knowing who exactly you are dealing with.

            Senator McCain has built the foundation of his campaign on his foreign policy experience and knowledge of the world. As a senior member on the Armed Services Committee, you would expect him to know a few things concerning the geopolitical climate of the world. However, McCain has proven on more than one occasion that he is either confused or incapable of handling such tasks. The faults and confusions run deep, and the repercussions of such ignorance can be the difference between victory and defeat. 

            McCain was the single leading proponent on the Iraq Surge, which has been credited with quelling the violence. You would expect that he would at least have some idea of troop levels deployed to Iraq; but he doesn’t. When asked about troop levels and when a reduction would occur, McCain stated, “We are currently operating at pre-surge levels.” However, McCain made a miscalculation concerning the numbers. The major miscalculation was about 25,000 troops off! Pre-Surge levels in Iraq were at about 130,000; when McCain made the statement that troop levels were at about 155,000. Doesn’t seem significant to the average person, but a commander is responsible for having accountability of all his soldiers. This occurred the same day McCain made a speech about the safety of Mosul; which coincidentally had 3 suicide attacks that killed over 30 Iraqi civilians. But what else do we expect from a man who spoke of the safety in Baghdad, while being guarded by a battalion of Marines and two attack helicopters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002790.html

            Considering the fact that we have been involved in these lengthy engagements, you would expect the Presidential hopeful to understand just who we are dealing with. After all, the very basic manual that U.S. war fighting doctrine is based off of, Art of War, clearly states “know your enemy.” However, John McCain manages to fall short of this expectation. McCain wrongly stated, “it is common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate.” Sen. Joseph Lieberman, McCain’s parrot, had to step in and correct McCain, at which point McCain stepped forward and said, “I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.” Two problems here: al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization, Iran is Shia dominated; and Iran is an enemy of Osama Bin Laden. In fact, Iran has al-Qaeda operatives imprisoned and has refused to release them to either U.S. or al-Qaeda forces.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803180007

            When asked about Iran, McCain wrongly asserted the President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the leader of the country. Iran is an Islamic Republic, meaning that the Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is a moderate centrist, is the actual leader. After the interviewer corrected him, McCain still was not ready to buy in the facts: “I mean, the fact is he’s the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that’s a uh, that’s your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know.” Somebody should tell John McCain that the reporter was not disagreeing with him, he was stating the truth. And he should be advised it is not the average American that dictates who world leaders are.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/20/mccain_iran/?source=refresh

            Senator McCain has also assailed Barack Obama’s position of meeting with Iranian leaders. McCain has called Obama an appeaser, and accused him of being soft on terror. And as of today, July 16th, the Bush Administration has, according to McCain’s views, become soft on terror and appeasers. According to recent reports, U.S. Under Secretary of State William Burns plans to join EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and officials from China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany in Geneva on Saturday to talk with Iran's nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, to discuss an offer made last month by the six major powers. Apparently, McCain’s foreign experience only leads to provocations and war, relegating diplomacy to nothing more than a bucolic memory of what used to be.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN1636104120080716

            Senator McCain asserts that Iraq is the “central front” for the War on Terror. This is interesting and should be analyzed so average Americans can understand this. If Iraq is the front for the war on terror, then who are the terrorists? In 2003, it was the Sunni factions that U.S. troops were engaged in heavy battles with. This later shifted in 2005 to the Shiite faction and Mehdi Army under Muqtada al-Sadr. What has been their quarrel: U.S. presence in Iraq. Where is their battleground: Iraq. So militia’s fighting an occupying force in their own country are the terrorists? Well, if we left the country who would they fight: each other? Well that doesn’t sound plausible, considering we were told by the PresidentBush that there is an established unity government and no threat of civil war. So that leaves us with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, which continues to operate freely in the border regions of Pakistan, and continue to be a menace to NATO forces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4829786.stm

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=32144
                The War on Terror was, after all, started in a “crusade,” as Bush called it, against al-Qaeda and other extremist groups. Afghanistan was where the Taliban and al-Qaeda first came to prominence, and now it is in the border regions of Pakistan where they continue to thrive. Last August, Barack Obama declared, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.” He received a fury of criticism from Democratic rivals, including the White House and John McCain. John McCain called this “confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate;” and former Press Secretary, Tony Snow stated, “We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation.” However, on Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft sent two Hellfire missiles into the Pakistani town of Mir Ali, killing Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander. According to the Washington post article, which reported the strikes, the United States

“Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.”

The article also describes top military advisers views, and the Bush policy realignment on Pakistan intervention:

“Top Bush administration policy officials - who are increasingly worried about al-Qaeda's use of its sanctuary in remote, tribally ruled areas in northern Pakistan to dispatch trained terrorists to the West - have quietly begun to accept the military's point of view, according to several sources familiar with the context of the Libi strike.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/mccain_soft_on_al_qaeda.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/obamas-pakistan-position-endorsed-by-bush-in-06/   

            Yesterday McCain gave a speech concerning Afghanistan and the need to send more troops to that region. But this is a reversal on his position from a few months ago, where he stated that the Iraq War was not keeping troops from being sent to Afghanistan. Wrong for two reasons: Chairman of JCS has already stated that Iraq has tied up the troops he has available; McCain said, “thanks to the victory in Iraq, we can now free up more troops to go to Afghanistan.” This is an exact contradiction to his previous statement. John McCain is also unclear as to where these troops will come from; at first he stated the U.S. would provide them, and then he said it would be part of a NATO contingent.

            McCain also, once again, attacked Obama’s comment about attacking Pakistan’s border regions to target al-Qaeda terrorists. McCain said, “You don't broadcast that you are going to bomb a country that is a sovereign nation. It's just fundamentals of the conduct of national security policy.” This comes from the man who sang “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” But he also went on to say, “In trying to sound tough, he has made it harder for the people whose support we most need to provide it. I will not bluster, and I will not make idle threats. But understand this: when I am commander in chief, there will be nowhere the terrorists can run, and nowhere they can hide.” This is another contradiction; considering The Bush administration has attacked Pakistan and has acknowledged terrorist in Pakistan. Military leaders and high level intelligence agencies have also acknowledged the porous bordered between the two countries, and the ability of Taliban and al-Qaeda militants slipping in and out the two countries. But if McCain says there will be “nowhere they can hide,” he is acknowledging that he will go on the offensive to pursue these militants, which are in Pakistan.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/15/1200314.aspx

            McCain’s confusion and failures are not simply isolated blunders when it comes to the War on Terror or the Middle East. In a previous article, I covered Obama’s foresight into African affairs, and the bill he sponsored condemning Robert Mugabe. I believe it is important for an American President to understand international affairs before they become a problem, and not once they boil over. But John McCain cannot even get his geography correct. On July 1st McCain had to be corrected by his aide, Mark Salter. McCain was quoted as saying, “How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?” At this point, Mark Salter said, “Sudan,” which prompted McCain to correct himself and say “Sudan.” He then went on to say that “there’s a realpolitik side of my view of the conduct of American foreign policy.” McCain should first get a real world view of the politics that he will be getting involved with.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/mccain-confuses-somalia-a_n_110152.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/strategy_for_victory_in_afghan.html

            The most recent gaffe occurred yesterday, where McCain expressed concern with “a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days, reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia.” In 1992 Czechoslovakia was dissolved and split into two nations, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This is something that a foreign policy expert should be aware of. Even George Bush had to correct McCain on the 2000 Presidential campaign, saying “Well, I know there is no Czechoslovakia.” If a President is going to engage in foreign affairs, especially taking concern in specific matters, then he should at least be concerned with an existing nation. And if it was just a misstatement, then why has he said it numerous times? http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16196.html

            All these gaffes and misstatements, and some outright flip-flops seem minor, and to some extent, they are. However, when you had up all the little cracks in his foundation, eventually the structure will collapse. Considering his biggest gaffes central around the Middle Eastern region and Muslim nations, this should be of great concern. The area is volatile, and anti-American sentiment is high. If we are to correct this problem we will need a competent President who is well versed in world culture and world affairs. If our economy is becoming globalized, then our leaders should become globalized in their understanding of cultural and political dynamics. Unfortunately, aside from all the good talk, McCain is not a foreign policy expert.