McCain Campaign Wrong About Petraeus' "Central Front"

By Cernig

John McCain insists that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror, disagreeing with both U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and General Mullen, Chief of the Joint Chiefs. That's a problem for his "national security" credibility, as the Ariel Sabar at the CSM pointed out yesterday:

...with record US casualties in Afghanistan in June, a resurgent Taliban, and new reports of Al Qaeda regrouping in northwest Pakistan, Senator McCain is likely to face new questions about his judgment on the one issue – national security – where voters consistently give him higher marks than they do his Democratic rival.

McCain has resisted calls for more troops in Afghanistan and has rejected criticism that the Iraq war is detracting from efforts to secure Afghanistan. He labeled Barack Obama "naive" for saying he'd strike terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without the cooperation of President Pervez Musharraf.

And while McCain vowed more than a year ago to follow Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell," he has offered few details about how his approach to Al Qaeda might differ from that of the Bush administration.

"I will not describe what I will do in order to get bin Laden, except to say that I'll get him," he said in Iowa last September.

Therefore, his campaign is invoking the Sainted General, Petraeus, as his bulwark against criticism.

"As on many things, Senator Obama is not listening to our commanders, and Senator McCain is," says Kori Schake, a senior policy adviser to McCain. "General David Petraeus believes Iraq is the central front in the war on terror."

The only trouble is, that isn't true.

During his confirmation hearings to his new CentCom post, General Petraeus confirmed that, just like Crocker and Mullen, he feels the greatest threat comes from the Afghan/Pakistan border rather than Iraq. McCain might have known that, if he hadn't skipped the hearings to fundraise and appear on Ellen.

Back to the Monitor:

"If the public is not aware that Al Qaeda is cropping up in North Africa and Afghanistan and other locations, then McCain's message might be accepted," says Gordon Smith, a political scientist at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. "For those members of the public who are well informed, to hear him argue as if Al Qaeda exists primarily in Iraq might lead to questions of, 'What's he thinking? Where's he getting his information from?' "

That last is a good question. The answer, apparently, is from big-oil shills and those who believe that any challenge to Israel's nuclear power monopoly is more important to U.S. national security than the resurgent threat of those who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Update: Brandon Friedman at VetVoice runs down in detail just what Bush and McCain's back-burner attitude to Afghanistan has meant in terms of national security, noting that had the Surge been sent to Afghanistan it would have doubled US forces there.

But now that the surge is over--and now that our ground forces are largely depleted--Iran is much stronger, the Taliban is resurgent, and we still haven't reached anything resembling success in Iraq.  This all occurring against the backdrop of a failing state in Afghanistan. 

... We can't send more troops to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan because they're all tied up in Iraq.

So next time someone brings up how "successful" the surge has been in Iraq, just point to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.  Note how the disastrously ignorant policies pushed on us by Bush and McCain have done little for Iraq, and only served to benefit the Taliban and, by extension, al Qaeda.   

And next time some pundit or reporter tells you it's not okay to question the military experience and judgment of John McCain, be sure to bring this up. 

Oh, I will.