Iraq and al-Qaeda

John McCain brought the straight talk on a CNN interview earlier today:

Well, all I can say is that [Hillary Clinton] obviously does not understand nor appreciate the progress that has been made on the ground. She told General Petraeus last year when he testified that she would have to suspend disbelief in order to believe that the surge is working. Well, the surge is working.

So I just think what that means is al Qaeda wins. They tell the world that. And we fight here again and around the Middle East. And their dedication is to follow us home. All I can say is that this will be a big issue in the election as we approach November because at least a growing number of Americans, though still frustrated and understandably so, believe that this strategy has succeeded.

Bracketing the entire issue of whether or not the surge is succeeding, to portray what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq as primarily a matter of fighting al-Qaeda is breathtakingly dishonest. At least I hope it's dishonest, because if McCain is really that clueless about what's happening, then we're in more trouble than I thought. Meanwhile, this business about al-Qaeda following us home from Iraq is ludicrous. The American deployment in Iraq isn't a physical barrier preventing people from coming to the United States. Obviously, preventing would-be terrorists from getting into the country is an important priority, but sending 160,000 soldiers to Iraq doesn't accomplish that.

Meanwhile, as John Brennan told me a few weeks ago, McCain "says that al-Qaeda has said it will be a defeat if we leave, I think it is most inappropriate to concede to al-Qaeda the ability to define what constitutes success." After all, "al-Qaeda's strategy has been to bleed the U.S. into bankruptcy and to continue with the same approach will have severe consequences for U.S. national security." I think that's exactly right. To reason, as McCain does, that because al-Qaeda will boast if we leave Iraq that we therefore most make an unlimited commitment to indefinite warfare there is crazy; we'd be letting a small group of fanatics pin down a huge swathe of the American military with nothing more than the threat to release a gloating videotape.

Comments

to portray what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq as primarily a matter of fighting al-Qaeda is breathtakingly dishonest.

You're assuming McCain has even a basic grasp of what's going on in Iraq. I think if you asked him, point-blank and without any advisors close enough to interrupt, to give a one-paragraph analysis on how al Qaeda relates--numerically, ideologically, politically--to the larger unrest in Iraq, you would get a pause and a blank stare and some incoherent rambling that would make Bush look Lincolnesque by comparison.

Good thing for the McCain campaign that the toughest question Senator Slippers will ever face from the likes of Russert, David Gregory and Tweety is, "Are you the manliest maverick man to ever participate in American poiltics? Or just the awesomest since Teddy Roosevelt?

Posted by Jim | March 17, 2008 3:37 PM

He really is that clueless, and we're in more trouble than you can imagine if he's elected.

Didn't bin Laden want to bankrupt our economy? how nice for him that we did his job for him by bleeding ourselves dry in Iraq. John McCain, objectively supporting al Qaeda since 9/11! There's a narrative you won't see in the campaign from our wussy Democratic Party.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 17, 2008 3:41 PM

I've noticed that Obama makes a point of saying "Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan", which seems to me to be a useful framing.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 17, 2008 3:48 PM

He will say anything to get elected. He doesn't know anything about anything.

That explains his torture, tax cuts, and Rumsfeld flip-flops, and his willingness to go Romney/dolschetosse on people who are encumbered by reality.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | March 17, 2008 3:49 PM

i hate to repeat what everyone else has already said, but in this case it's worth it: of course john mccain is that clueless.

elvis, that's not fair to mccain: he certainly knew how to marry up.

Posted by howard | March 17, 2008 3:53 PM

Hearing "they'll follow us home" always conjures up some funny imagery in my mind. As if they'll hop in tiny jets to follow our planes back to America because they otherwise couldn't find the way. Or they'll disguise themselves in camo and hop aboard our planes, hoping not to get caught.

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 3:59 PM

And the Dems should play McCain saying "I don't know much about the economy" over and over and over again, on every medium possible.

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 4:02 PM

Monster, there was a very funny series of Doonesbury strips on that stupid meme.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 17, 2008 4:02 PM

When (if) we leave, the Shia will make short work of any AQI remnants.

Posted by mkultra | March 17, 2008 4:06 PM

Thanks Steve, I'll try to find those.

Meanwhile, here's some economics fun to get us started: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kqGWTh_NZ-0

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 4:07 PM

With news coverage of the war decreasing, are Americans going to believe McSame-Same's BS on Iraq?

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 4:12 PM

"Al Queda will follow us home."

That's got to be the stupidest line ever said. I wish some politician would stand up and say, "what, they don't have maps?" or "what, you think they are puppy dogs?"

Sheeesh.

(Hint: they weren't "following" anybody home when they struck on 9/11)

Posted by A DC Wonk | March 17, 2008 4:16 PM

Sadly, with people more worried about the economy than the war at this point, waste of treasure is potentially a more potent angle than waste of lives. That disgusts me, but politicians have to meet the voters where they are. I'll support whichever Dem candidate starts making a forceful connection between the Iraq debacle and he unfolding economic trainwreck, and hammers it home until it can't be ignored by the media. I believe that's the winning theme for the fall.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 17, 2008 4:19 PM

to portray what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq as primarily a matter of fighting al-Qaeda is breathtakingly dishonest

And he portrays this... where?

The American deployment in Iraq isn't a physical barrier preventing people from coming to the United States.

So what? Who ever said that a "physical barrier" is the only thing that can keep al Qaeda from coming to the US?

Posted by Al | March 17, 2008 4:19 PM

Run along and play, Al. We're talking about grownup things.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 17, 2008 4:22 PM

Al: 19 Al Qaeda flunkies took down the Twin Towers. That's all it took - 19 members of their farm team. How does our keeping troops in Iraq prevent them from sending another 19 AAA prospects to wreck havoc here?
Matt wrote: "we'd be letting a small group of fanatics pin down a huge swathe of the American military with nothing more than the threat to release a gloating videotape."
I don't know Matt, that whole "Youtube Death to America" thing scares me no end.

Posted by Bob | March 17, 2008 4:24 PM

Let's fight 'em in the Bahamas!

Posted by Fred in NC | March 17, 2008 4:30 PM

Thing is, Obama can't get too nuanced with this thing, because, after all, our nation did elect Bush twice. I mean, whatever your stance on the Wright issue, the ordeal is bringing out comments like this:

"obama got caught,he is an anti amesrican racist,go back to mecca you loser!"

Also look at how the "going after certain targets in Pakistan" was spun and immediately accepted as "He's going to nuke Pakistan!!!! OUR ALLY!!!!"

It is seriously scary. So I'm not sure the average American voter will be able to understand "Al Qaeda represents X% of the violence, there is also Y, Z, etc., and we must approach it in these ways..."

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 4:36 PM

McCain graduated close to the bottom of his class from a very mediocre higher education institution (Naval Academy). It may be he is simply not very bright.

Posted by bob h | March 17, 2008 5:35 PM

You're right, Matt. Al Qaeda in Iraq only represents 2 to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency, if that. The central front in the war on terror is Waziristan and it has always been Waziristan. McCain's comments are patently dishonest and he deserves to lose the presidential race in November.

Posted by realist | March 17, 2008 5:38 PM

"McCain graduated close to the bottom of his class from a very mediocre higher education institution (Naval Academy). It may be he is simply not very bright."

And what, you ARE intelligent? I'm going to go ahead and say you didn't graduate any better. I would like to see you experience what he has, then say that. There is a lot more to what educational institution you get into than simply GPA. Stanford and Yale aren't exactly cheap.

Posted by real | March 17, 2008 6:16 PM

Bull's eye.

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 17, 2008 6:55 PM

Obviously, preventing would-be terrorists from getting into the country is an important priority, but sending 160,000 soldiers to Iraq doesn't accomplish that.

It doesn't? And here I was thinking, if it works for al qaeda, why wouldn't it work for the Mexicans? I think we should put up a fence in Iraq and redeploy our troops over the horizon to Mexico.

Posted by Bunker | March 17, 2008 8:01 PM

Fine post, but... "al-Qaeda's strategy has been to bleed the U.S. into bankruptcy"?

Provoke the US into self-destructive behavior, okay, that's what terrorism is generally all about, and it worked. But how on earth could they have known that the US would throw 3 trillion $ at an unrelated war, all the while sending oil prices skyhigh?

The wasp stings the buffalo to make it run, but knows not where it will run. Chinese proverb or something like that.

Posted by Hans B | March 17, 2008 8:06 PM

McCain's IQ was tested at 133 when he was in the Navy.

Hillary failed the DC bar exam. She is where she is because of her husband.

Posted by Jason | March 17, 2008 8:48 PM

McCain's IQ was tested at 133 when he was in the Navy.

~130? So, 2 std deviations from the mean. ~97% percentile. 3 people out of 100 would be smarter. Over 6 million in the US.

McCain's smart enough to run a good size grocery.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 17, 2008 8:59 PM

Hillary failed the DC bar exam. She is where she is because of her husband.

What a coinkydinky. McCain's where he is because of his wife. And siphoning off his deepest held beliefs to pander to get the nomination.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 17, 2008 9:02 PM

McCain is plenty "smart" to be a fine leader. It's his staunch commitment to Republican anti-factual ideology that matters.

The bigger threat, which none of you seem to appreciate, is how discussions of IQ are like rubbing the doo-doo lamp, since soon Steve Sailer will appear to launch into subjects of race & IQ again.

And no one wants that.

Posted by El Cid | March 17, 2008 9:04 PM

"[McCain would let] a small group of fanatics pin down a huge swathe of the American military with nothing more than the threat to release a gloating videotape."

Yup.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | March 17, 2008 10:14 PM

I don't think his IQ is all that relevant, since 133 would still be a ~40 point increase from the current clown we elected (twice!).

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 10:24 PM

Well, this is hardly the first piece of evidence that McCain actually takes PRIDE in being cement-headed -- one trait that he definitely does share with our current President (and one which may explain the clash between that reported 133 IQ and the fact that he graduated from West Point fifth from the bottom of his class of 900).

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 17, 2008 10:56 PM

Bush is smarter than McCain, just more conservative.

Someone needs to explain to me why 15 million Iraqi Shi'a would embrace Al Qaeda.

Posted by mike | March 17, 2008 11:45 PM

McCain crashed 4 planes Stateside before setting fire to his carrier and getting shot down. The NVA probably gave him a medal.

Posted by merlallen | March 18, 2008 2:49 AM

Traditionally, the smarter the president, the more trouble they cause.

In my view any of the three likely presidents are going to do virtually the same thing in Iraq --de-emphasize it as a "war" (which it hasn't really been in years), and continue to support the elected government there, if in lower-profile ways than currently.

As far as the Global War on Terror, and fwiw the Global War on Drugs too, we need to declare victory and radically restructure the program. The principal terrorist threat to the US doesn't come from Iraq, but then it doesn't come from Waziristan either. It comes from major European cities, where Muslim extremists have lots of advantages with guaranteed rights, welfare incomes, the patina of political correctness, and passports that don't require visas for US travel.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 18, 2008 3:48 AM

Al Qaeda wants to re-enact the Normandy landings on the beaches of Delaware. With their mighty navy.

Posted by sglover | March 18, 2008 3:50 PM

McCain graduated close to the bottom of his class from a very mediocre higher education institution (Naval Academy).

Look, McCain's turned himself into a hack and a panderer, but 1) Annapolis is not "mediocre", 2) graduating from any of the service academies is not a trivial accomplishment, 3) his military service was as good as anybody's, and 4) his conduct as a POW was genuinely heroic.

Posted by sglover | March 18, 2008 4:00 PM

And the hits keep on coming:

~130? So, 2 std deviations from the mean. ~97% percentile. 3 people out of 100 would be smarter. Over 6 million in the US.

McCain's smart enough to run a good size grocery.

This is easily the dumbest thing I've read or heard this week. You've let your political allegiance turn you into a chowderhead.

Posted by sglover | March 18, 2008 4:04 PM