McCain's "Let's Do What al-Qaeda Wants Strategy"

I guess John McCain thinks outsourcing his strategic thinking to Osama bin Laden is such a great idea that he wants to brag about it:

As you know, I was in Iraq, Jordan, Israel, France and England on my last visit. And a couple of days ago, as you probably know, an audiotape -- actually it was last week -- an audiotape was released where bin Laden said, and I have to quote bin Laden, ... 'the nearest field to support our people in Palestine is the Iraqi field.' He urged Palestinians and people of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to quote 'help in support of their mujahedeen brothers in Iraq, which is the greatest opportunity and the biggest task.' Now my friends, for the first time I have seen Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus in agreement, and that is, the central battleground in the battle against al Qaeda is in Iraq today. And that's what bin Laden is saying and that's what General Petraeus is saying and that's what I'm saying, my friends, and my Democrat opponents who want to pull out of Iraq refuse to understand what's being said and what's happening, and that is, the central battleground is Iraq in this struggle against radical Islamic extremism.

There's no question that, as McCain points out here at some length, that bin Laden would really like to see an epic struggle in Iraq between the United States military and an array of al-Qaeda recruits who, inspired by the idea of a struggle against American occupation, will flood into that country. As McCain says, this is bin Laden's view of how events in the world are unfolding. Why McCain thinks the correct response is to do what bin Laden wants, I couldn't quite say. Possibly, he's just not very bright.

Comments

Nonsense. If McCain says we have to do what al-Qaeda wants, then let it be done, for Brutus is an honorable man.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | March 24, 2008 9:19 PM

Let's be precise here:

Iraq is the center of al Qaeda's war against us right now. They chose that ground. We can't win there, but they can sure as hell hurt us.

Afghannistan is the center of our fight against al Qaeda. That's where we can really hurt them.

There are a lot of objectives John McCain desires which Iraq is central to achieving, but the war against al Qaeda is not among them. It's that other stuff, game of Risk where he thinks it's a great idea for us to take over Muslim countries and put big armies there.

Posted by joe | March 24, 2008 9:20 PM

Now my friends, for the first time I have seen Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus in agreement, and that is, the central battleground in the battle against al Qaeda is in Iraq today.

My friends, when our propaganda matches that of our enemies, it surely is cause for concern.

Posted by Jake | March 24, 2008 9:20 PM

There's no question that, as McCain points out here at some length, that bin Laden would really like to see an epic struggle in Iraq between the United States military and an array of al-Qaeda recruits who, inspired by the idea of a struggle against American occupation, will flood into that country.

Well, maybe. If he's still alive. But the audio tape in question contains no reference to recent events, and is largely concerned with the two-year old Muhammad cartoons flap. It sounds like an outtake from some old shit.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 24, 2008 9:22 PM

Why McCain thinks the correct response is to do what bin Laden wants, I couldn't quite say.

Er, huh?

Bin Laden obviously wants to win in Iraq. Which he might be able to accomplish if the US surrenders - as Matthew prefers. If we don't surrender, then it is unlikely that bin Laden will win in Iraq.

Posted by Al | March 24, 2008 9:28 PM

"Bin Laden obviously wants to win in Iraq."

bin Laden isn't even *in* Iraq.

What a maroon!

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Joel | March 24, 2008 9:31 PM

As Osama says, "We've got to fight them there in Iraq, so they don't follow us home in Pakistan."

Posted by dogfacegeorge | March 24, 2008 9:31 PM

Bin Laden obviously wants to win in Iraq.

Jesus, what the hell does winning look like? Oh, that's right, keeping us bogged down for another 5 years and bleeding money like a sieve. How could I forget?

Explain to me how us staying prevents him from winning again?

Posted by Jake | March 24, 2008 9:32 PM

Great. George Bush, whatever other faults he may have, was at least concise enough to offer the memorable phrase, "Bring 'em on." It sounds like McCain requires an entire tedious paragraph to get across the exact same sentiment.

Posted by James Gary | March 24, 2008 9:34 PM

Dan,
The cartoons they were recently republished, once again raising anger in the Muslim world.

Posted by bjd | March 24, 2008 9:34 PM

How come even my 6-year old kid knows that when a hooligan taunts you to get into a fight on the playground you walk away, yet a Presidential Candidate would rather indulge the baddie... Just mind-boggling...

Posted by Krassen | March 24, 2008 9:41 PM

How come even my 6-year old kid knows that when a hooligan taunts you to get into a fight on the playground you walk away, yet a Presidential Candidate would rather indulge the baddie... Just mind-boggling...

Posted by Krassen | March 24, 2008 9:41 PM

So al Qaeda now gets to pick where the goalposts are, and what constitutes a field goal? Is he not watching the Clintons at all?

Posted by Deborah | March 24, 2008 9:49 PM

It's apparent from McCain's remarks that he basically considers the war on terrorism to be a war on all Islamic Middle Eastern states in one form or another.

That's why he conflates Shia and Sunni, Al Qaeda, Iranians, etc. For him and his kind, the entire Middle Eastern Islamic community is one big breeding ground of terrorists and the only way to stop them is to defeat them militarily. Hence, empire is the only solution.

I really think this is also the formulation of Hillary Clinton as well. Read her remarks about voting to wage war in Iraq; read the Clinton administration remarks on Saddam Hussein. Consider Hillary's vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Subtract out all that she has said to pander to the anti-war sentiment in the Democratic party base. That is Hillary Clinton.

Plus, she is desparate to prove how tough she is; he she is another Margaret Thatcher. Add in the fact that she considers the ability to wage war to be a political plus for a president.

In many regards I worry more about Hillary than I would about McCain, because with McCain I think he would be more easily read, more easily exposed, and more easily stopped if he were president.

Posted by cm | March 24, 2008 9:49 PM

Leaving Iraq != surrender.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 24, 2008 9:58 PM

McCain cares mainly about PR, heroism, legacy. He's similar to Bush in that way, only he's deemed more legitimate because, you know, he actually went to war and suffered from the kinds of torture that has now been embraced by the fauxhawk crusaders on the Right. As long as McCain is forever the war hero and maverick, and as long as U.S. casualties in Iraq are tolerable according to whatever warped and arbitrary metrics he's employing, we're always "winning" and can never lose anything. (Nothing, that is, other than money, which we can just borrow from China and then get back when we bomb them.) He simply cannot fathom that ending a military occupation without declaring "victory" and without holding tickertape parades may in fact be the best of all possible solutions to the greatest clusterfuck since Vietnam. It's all about the message we'd send to Radical Islamic Extremists if we didn't stay forever, and how we'd look if we left a nation without killing all the bad guys. It's absurd.

Posted by tinisoli | March 24, 2008 10:04 PM

Just another note on insane McCain. Anyone else notice how he always puts the following three words together: "radical Islamic extremism". I don't think he's capable of saying Islamic without it being bookended by radical and extremism.

What's the over-under on the # of times he uses that phrase in the first presidential debate? I'm guessing about half as many times as "my friends".

Posted by Jake | March 24, 2008 10:06 PM

Go back to the '70s Jeffrey Davis, you punk hippie kid!

Posted by John McThuselah | March 24, 2008 10:07 PM

Well Mr. Krassen my guess is that McCain is dumber than a 6 year old.

Posted by Kyle | March 24, 2008 10:42 PM

As soon as I heard Bin Laden say that, I knew he was targeting McCain, what a sucker. Bin Laden's all "oh yeah... Iraq is teh awesome, we're gonna so totally take it..." and McCain walks right into it.

I don't know why Al and John McCain want Osama Bin Laden running our foreign policy, seems like we should get a loyal American to do that.

I'm STILL waiting for Al or Eli Lake or ANYONE to explain to me how Al Qaeda gets anywhere in a country with 15 million Shi'a, who are actually the one group on earth that hates Bin Laden more than NYC cops do.

Posted by mike | March 24, 2008 10:50 PM

If a democrat said that, the reaction would be: "OMG THEY JUST SAID GENERAL PATRIOS = OBL!!!11"

Posted by Ameirca | March 24, 2008 11:03 PM

It is very hard for a Leftist with no military or idea of strategy like MY to understand.

AQ called Iraq the "Central Battlefront" in 2003, and since then, trying to kill Americans, Sunni, and Shia Iraqis armed with automatic weapons have managed to decimate AQ's resources in the ME, North Africa, and Europe that went down in haste to Iraq to be slaughtered.

Worse, they went in such haste they exposed much of their networks in many countries, leading to more arrests, and the AQ that were captured by Sunni and Shia Iraqis found their demands for an ACLU or London-based radical groups lawyer - were amazingly, NOT HONORED. Which of course led to more exposure of AQ networks and more damage.

And AQ's desperate tactics only made Sunnis in Iraq and Jordan, as well as Shia...very pissed off at them by 2005.

MY argues counterintuitively that if Binnie wanted to fight the US in stand-up battle in Afghanistan or Iraq, we should instead shirk such battled even if we were slaughtering and exposing their networks in other countries because "We were doing what bin Laden wanted!!!"....and instead of invading Afghanistan or Iraq thus doing "bin Ladens bidding to kill his people" we should have ....what??? Painted mosques in Saudi Arabia and fought their terrorists and bombers in Europe, N America, and Asia instead?

McCain is right in that Sunnis are waking up to what life is like if AQ or other radical Islamist fighters win, and they don't like what they saw in Tal Afar, Jordan, Algeria, and the nighmare the Hamas people have put on the Palestinians in Gaza...
Iraq is a better place to fight Islamoids than in the USA, UK, or Malaysia, or Nigeria. We killed far more of them than in Afghanistan and gotten far more intelligence on the 60 or so radical Muslim groups besides AQ. The consensus of leaders is that bin Laden % leadership badly miscalculated in going into Iraq and have alienated Arabs, fell into easy traps where hundreds of mujuhadeen were slaughtered, decimated his supporters in other countries and that the US is now almost butchering AQ in Iraq - wiping them out and doing so, as they have for most the war, by inflicting far more casualties on AQ and allies than they have taken.

And Arabs are finding AQ has no interest in supporting maimed Jihadis returning from Iraq. Distrusted in their home countries, shut-ins in their parents houses or out begging alms..

Some radicals, we have learned, are sitting this out. The Muslim Brotherhood said they are staying out of it because AQ offers a false, perverted vision and they are being slaughtered by the Americans and clearly losing....

McCAin is right. Finish the job. No "last helicopter out of Saigon" scenario with the democide to start soon after we cut 'n run.

Posted by chris ford | March 24, 2008 11:13 PM

Bin Laden isn't even in control of the al-Qaida brand in Iraq, so how he's supposed to win there is anybody's guess. What he can do is release tapes that goad us into staying so that we don't look weak to him, which drains us of blood and treasure, which makes us weaker, which potentially makes the Saudi and Egyptian governments weaker and less popular, which makes it easier for al-Qaida to get popular support among Saudi Arabians and Egyptians so that his cohorts can seize power there. The war on AQ is fundamentally about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan and then secondly about popular Muslim support for the Palestinians, Chechnyans, Kashmiris, Uyghurs, etc. that AQ can then tap into. Iraq is a sideshow.

Posted by Reality Man | March 24, 2008 11:21 PM

900 Americans dead since the surge and now the Iraqis are turning on us because we refuse to pay up what we promised. But yeah, we're totally kicking ass!

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 24, 2008 11:25 PM

I think MY is kind of straw-manning McCain's argument here by being deliberately obtuse. If Osama has defined victory in Iraq as crucial, winning in Iraq is more significant symbolically, at the very least, and perhspas moreso if it means destroying more Al Qaeda resources (which under this view are employed there because Osama thinks the fight is so crucial). That's not an argument I agree with, but while it's fun to be snarky, it's probably that intellectually useful in this case.

That said, he might not, in fact, be that bright. Apparently, he graduated 894th out of 899 in his class, which I thought was kind of a striking figure. http://nymag.com/news/politics/encyclopedia/college/

Posted by JM | March 24, 2008 11:32 PM

McCain's still fighting the Vietnam War. He's a morally and strategically hidebound idiot. All you need to know about him is that Joe "the only thing that matters is if it's good for the Jews..." Lieberman is literally whispering evil nothings in his ear.

Posted by Trevor | March 25, 2008 12:31 AM

If you read Michael Scheuer's analysis of bin Laden's strategy, it makes no sense that bin Laden really considers Iraq some sort of "central front".

Here is Scheuer's analysis:

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373739

Money Quotes:

First, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and the rest of the al-Qaeda leadership have described Iraq as "Islam's" central battlefield in the war against the "Crusaders and Zionists," not as "al-Qaeda's" central battlefield (as-Sahab Productions, September 7). Al-Qaeda leaders deliberately describe themselves as only a part of a bigger Islamist struggle, and seldom if ever try to hog the spotlight. This, incidentally, is why there is no sadness among al-Qaeda's chiefs that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is now a dead hero rather than a live operator; al-Zarqawi was simply too insistent on al-Qaeda playing the lead role in Iraq (Daily Star, April 3, 2006). Al-Qaeda's doctrine is to be the vanguard of a larger movement, not the movement itself (Terrorism Focus, September 11).

Second, May misses the point that al-Qaeda is welcomed on so many contemporary jihadi battlefields—Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, southern Thailand, Algeria, among others—precisely because it is determined to play a supporting and not a leading role in those insurgencies. Rather than leading insurgencies, al-Qaeda's fighters have a long record of arriving in the battle zone and playing a subordinate role that is meant to make the local insurgency better and more effective militarily, politically and media-wise. The West would be very fortunate if al-Qaeda were fielding multiple al-Zarqawi clones who caused internal dissension in all the insurgencies which they joined, but such is not the case. Again, al-Qaeda doctrine is to support and guide, not to lead.

Third, and finally, no matter what al-Qaeda doctrine says, the historical reality is that insurgencies win or lose based on their authenticity; national insurgencies, such as the one in Iraq, must be led, supported and overwhelmingly manned by local inhabitants. Outsiders—as were bin Laden and other Arab mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet war—can assist the locals in valuable ways by providing such things as arms and money, but they can never lead and command an insurgency occurring in a country where they are not natives. Bin Laden made this point explicitly on October 22 (al-Jazeera, October 22). In speaking to the Iraqi insurgent groups, he praised them—and not AQI—"for carrying out one of the greatest duties that few people could carry out; namely, the duty of repelling the enemy…The infidels have become confused and soon will flee." Looking to the need to govern the country after a U.S. defeat, bin Laden also admonished the "brother amirs of the mujahid [Iraqi] groups" for being slow "in carrying out another duty…namely, the duty of unifying your ranks as God, be He glorified and exalted wants." The al-Qaeda chief told the Iraqi mujahideen "the Muslims [worldwide] are waiting for you all to be united under one banner to uphold right," warning them that disunity could yield the squandering of their military victory over the U.S.-led coalition, as it did for the Afghan mujahideen after they defeated the Soviet Union (al-Jazeera, October 22).

Simply put, foreigners cannot win the popular support base indispensable to a durable and ultimately successful insurgency, and al-Qaeda learned that lesson well in Afghanistan in the 1980s and is rehearsing it again there and in Iraq today. The bottom line is that even if AQI is defeated, the Iraq insurgency—because it is authentic—will continue. In this light, current U.S. successes against AQI—while worthwhile and to be applauded—will not be a major factor, let alone determinative, in defeating the Iraqi insurgency."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 25, 2008 12:42 AM

surely you've been sent this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC3ALzxhCz4&eurl=http://neoistimpulse.blogspot.com/

Posted by kts | March 25, 2008 12:43 AM

surely you've been sent this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC3ALzxhCz4&eurl

Posted by kts | March 25, 2008 12:44 AM

McCain and Hillary are trapped in Cold War era thinking; that is all they know. Remember, before Hillary realized that she really was challenged by Obama, she kept on positioning herself to occupy the same positions as McCain.

McCain would take us to war against Iran, but so would Hillary.

Obama is the only candidate who can bring our foreign policy and national security into the 21st Century. With Obama we get out of Iraq and into peace.

Posted by cm | March 25, 2008 1:09 AM

"Actually, the more serious political risk for McCain is that he may become to be perceived to be like the crazy uncle in the Cary Grant movie, Arsenic and Old Lace, who thinks he is Teddy Roosevelt, blows his bugle, cries "Charge!," and dashes upstairs." -anon

Posted by Anya | March 25, 2008 1:11 AM

"will not be a major factor, let alone determinative, in defeating the Iraqi insurgency."

The Iraqi insurgency (Sunnis) are who stepped up to kill the AQI within themselves. We armed them to do this, but what happens when they've purged AQI? My feeling is that they use their new weapons and money to try an overthrow of the Shiite led government and likely install some sort of dictator. Not to mention the Shiite government seems to be warming up to Iran. We may have spent all this money and blood creating an ally for Iran, or a another Sunni dictator.

Posted by JordanT | March 25, 2008 1:22 AM

I think JordanT has a point, among some other good ones here. In fact, we may end up "creating an ally for Iran" AND "another Sunni dictator."

Naifs like MY always bite on the labels. "Al Qaeda" is a brand. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq are, on the other hand, nation states.

We've been doing a lousy job in many respects, and it's unsurprising that people who don't really get past labels see simple answers. There aren't any, not for how we got here, or for what we should do next. In my view the worst thing to do would be to duplicate our abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. "Out of sight, out of mind" is not a good method for bringing a war to an acceptable conclusion.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 25, 2008 4:23 AM

"That said, he might not, in fact, be that bright. Apparently, he graduated 894th out of 899 in his class, which I thought was kind of a striking figure. http://nymag.com/news/politics/encyclopedia/college/

Posted by JM | March 24, 2008 11:32 PM"

Hey, don't you dare go insulting General Custer by comparing him to McMaverick. Charge!

""Actually, the more serious political risk for McCain is that he may become to be perceived to be like the crazy uncle in the Cary Grant movie, Arsenic and Old Lace, who thinks he is Teddy Roosevelt, blows his bugle, cries "Charge!," and dashes upstairs." -anon

Posted by Anya | March 25, 2008 1:11 AM"

Someone should make sure that he doesn't put Lieberman in the window seat before bringing him down to Panama.

Posted by Reality Man | March 25, 2008 4:31 AM

The truth of the matter is that it is in the political interest of John McCain and O.b.L. to keep this gravy train going. After all they can get other mugs to do the dyin' for them. Whether McCain is bright enough to know this or not I can't say (I suspect not), but the question is how bright are the Palestinians, Americans, Iraqis and Israelis? If they all have any sense they will dump these idiots and realise that they are being used.

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 25, 2008 5:54 AM

Nobody has ever seen Dick Cheney and Osama at the same time.

Osama's beard in recent pictures has been obviously fake.

US strategy since 2001 has been exactly what Osama, if directing US affairs, would want.

Now, mind you, I'm not engaging in any irresponsible speculation that Osama and Dick Cheney are the same person. But sometimes, as a very wise, serious person once said, it would be irresponsible not to speculate . . .

Posted by rea | March 25, 2008 6:23 AM

How good did Obama look when he was beating Hillary in lily white states? How much more impressive is an away game victory than a home game win? Are there more bragging rights in outboxing Mike Tyson, or beating him at chess? I think it's like that. Or maybe he's just dumb.

Posted by aleks | March 25, 2008 7:32 AM

Did someone consult the Iraqis about using their country as "the central battleground in the battle against al Qaeda"? They're so lucky. We should rename their country Lucky-Duckistan.

Posted by An Outhouse | March 25, 2008 8:18 AM

"How come even my 6-year old kid knows that when a hooligan taunts you to get into a fight on the playground you walk away, yet a Presidential Candidate would rather indulge the baddie... Just mind-boggling..."
Posted by Krassen

You know what you get with that strategy Krassen? You get a kid that can't go to the playground.

Posted by Mr. Forward | March 25, 2008 8:32 AM

Winning in Iraq doesn't count. Only winning where there are electoral votes counts. Besides, it's not a big state. It's not even a state. It's not even in America. Therefore, it's unamerican.

Posted by Matt | March 25, 2008 9:07 AM

"Are there more bragging rights in outboxing Mike Tyson, or beating him at chess?"

Chess-boxing is now popular. You alternate rounds of boxing with a few moves. Against Tyson, I'd try for a fool's-mate.

Posted by Njorl | March 25, 2008 9:12 AM