McCain Foreign Policy Gaffe

[ydejin]

McCain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802973.html?hpid=topnews)apparently doesn't know about the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.
"We continue to be concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back," he said in comments after meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah II on Tuesday afternoon.

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said 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."
Iran is Shiite, Al-Qaeda is Sunni.
A few moments later, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in his ear. McCain then said, "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."
Isn't Foreign Policy supposed to be McCain's strong suit? If you watch the video you'll see that this does not look like he simply misspoke -- this is not a simple, "Shiite, oops I meant Sunni". Does McCain really not know the relationship between the basic players in Iraq? This is very troubling, particularly for a candidate that says foreign policy is his strength, and that he's no expert on the economy.

[Sarkus]

It's a gaffe, but it isn't that big a deal. While Iran may not be supporting al-Qaeda, it is probably supporting radical shiite elements that are setting off bombs in sunni neighborhoods.

Besides, even shiite and sunni are not exactly monolithic in their behavior. It's like saying something about protestants when what you really are referring to is methodists.

[bago]

It's not the first time, either (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697639/).

[TomChick]

The problem isn't that he's confusing Sunnis and Shiites. The problem is that he's perpetuating this Administration's trick of using al-Qaeda as shorthand for any terrorist. If he's going to have a solid Iraq policy, he needs to understand that al-Qaeda is not the problem and he needs to stop leaning on the term as a way to sell his agenda.

-Tom

[Rimbo]

Tom, you're right that the term al-Qaeda is a crutch, since these groups are not the ones that plotted the WTC attacks. That organization no longer functions. It has been replaced by all of these much larger al-Qaeda wannabe groups using the "street cred" of the name of al-Qaeda to recruit members. Since they are using the same name, McCain's technically correct. But most people aren't aware of that.

[Sarkus]

Well, Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism (other than in a very, very wide sense, and then only if you buy into the Neocon theory) and to the degree that al-Qaeda is active there is the result of our invasion.

I want us out of Iraq but the job's not done elsewhere. And we either have to change our foreign policy in a big way (way bigger than just going back to what Bill Clinton did) or we can expect future problems.

[ydejin]

It has been replaced by all of these much larger al-Qaeda wannabe groups using the "street cred" of the name of al-Qaeda to recruit members.Since they are using the same name, McCain's technically correct. But most people aren't aware of that.
No McCain is not technically correct and if you think he's technically correct, you either didn't read his statement carefully enough or you don't understanding the basic relationships between the groups involved. Neither Al-Qaeda nor Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) are affiliated with Iran. Al Qaeda and AQI are Sunni. Iran is Shiite, the groups working with Iran are Shiite extremist groups. That's what Lieberman tells him and that's why McCain corrects himself and says "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda." If McCain was talking about AQI, he would have said so, and I wouldn't have even considered that a gaffe.

One of the most basic struggles going on in Iraq now is between Shiites (partly backed by Iran) and Sunnis over who will ultimately control Iraq. The Sunnis include both Al Qaeda and the Sunni Awakening Councils, who don't get along with each other, but neither Al Queda or the Awakening Councils wants Iraq under Shiite control or Iranian influence. McCain just showed that he doesn't understand which side one of the most important players is on.

Unless McCain understands the basic dynamics between Shiite and Sunni, between Iraqi Shiites and Iran, and between AQI (who are Sunni) and the Sunni Awakening Councils (who are the Sunni we are currently affiliated with who are fighting AQI alongside us and are largely responsible for the success of the surge), he's just blowing smoke out his ass when he's talking about Iraq. His statement strongly suggests he doesn't know what's going on in Iraq at all as far as the groups involved and their relationship. For someone that touts Foreign Policy as his strength, that is just pathetic.

This poor understanding of the relationships between the religious groups and the power dynamics within these group is what got us in the awful mess in the first place. Bush's team did not fully understand what a tangled area Iraq was. If McCain also lacks either the willingness or the ability to deeply study the relationships between these groups, that is a huge problem and speaks very poorly of him as a potential President.

[Rimbo]

You are, of course, quite right that McCain made an error; I didn't mean to imply that he was correct in any regard other than that there is an organization operating in Iraq going by the name of "al Qaeda," in response to the sub-issue brought up by Tom's post.

[TomChick]

And I maintain that holding up al-Qaeda or even AQI as a catch-all boogeyman is missing the point of the challenge the next Administration will face in Iraq. That's McCain's far more significant gaffe, and I suspect what's going on when he casually mentions al-Qaeda being supported by Iran.

-Tom

P.S. But what I really want to know is if he can identify Med-ved, err, Mev-dev-yev, err, whatever his name is.

[ydejin]

You are, of course, quite right that McCain made an error; I didn't mean to imply that he was correct in any regard other than that there is an organization operating in Iraq going by the name of "al Qaeda," in response to the sub-issue brought up by Tom's post.
Ah, apologies for my misunderstanding then.

I do wonder how deep McCain's lack of understanding goes. McCain has claimed that if we withdraw from Iraq, Al Qaeda will take over. The military experts I've read, such as W. Patrick Lang (http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2008/03/brookings-opini.html) strongly disagree with that assessment. In their opinion now that the Iraqi Sunnis have largely rejected Al Qaeda, there is virtually no chance that Al Qaeda affiliates will take over Iraq.


For the record, AQI numbers a couple of thousand people. They are Sunni takfiri fighters who are completely unacceptable to the heavily armed Shia masses as well as to the great majority of Sunnis. The Sunnis discovered that they did not wish to live under takfiri rule and that is what caused the "Awakening," not our bloody money!

In other words there is NO CHANCE that AQI is going to "take over" Iraq.

Does McCain know this or not?

On the other hand, if what McCain is really meaning to say when he says Al Qaeda will take over is that Iran-backed factions (like the ones he was confusing with AQI) will take over, that suddenly makes a lot of sense. In fact I would agree that the likely outcome of a US pullout will be an increase in Iranian influence.

[Rimbo]

(in response to TomChick)

Ah... I misunderstood and thought you were saying that the name of the organization wasn't an appropriate catch-all for the specific boogeyman of terrorism.

Come to think of it, aren't "fearmonger" and "terrorist" synonyms? Both seek political ends through the means of scaring people...

[Rimbo]

Ah, apologies for my misunderstanding then.

None needed; I didn't make myself clear, so it was my fault.

On the other hand, if what McCain is really meaning to say when he says Al Qaeda will take over is that Iran-backed factions (like the ones he was confusing with AQI) will take over, that suddenly makes a lot of sense. In fact I would agree that the likely outcome of a US pullout will be an increase in Iranian influence.

Given recent history (the Iran-Iraq War), seems Iran would at the very least establish a buffer zone between them and Iraq. In fact, it seems that this would be their primary interest in the region right now.

But also, I wonder... Persia was once a vast empire reaching well into Iraqi territory and beyond. It's easy for us to forget this, but the persians never do. It's naive to think they wouldn't be interested in dominating the arabs as they once did.

[Lizard_King]

I was going to come in and FLIP OUT, but ydejin pretty much covered it. It's hard to predict exactly what a US pullout will result in when it comes to Iranian influence because the Shias are no more interested in being controlled by Iranians than the Sunnis were by AQ. So, regionally, yeah, obviously Iran is going to be in a very dominant position. But as far as Iraq itself goes, it could go either way, and the Iranians have the most leverage while the US is still around imo.

[Jason McCullough]

In a stunning turn of events, McCain thinks all of our enemies are pretty much interchangable.

[Andrew Mayer]

In a stunning turn of events, McCain thinks all of our enemies are pretty much interchangable.

He's a very serious foreign policy straight-shooter maverick, who is ready to answer the phone at 3AM!

[Mordrak]

He's a serious foreign policy straight shooter maverick, who is ready to answer the phone at 3AM!

Why answer the phone when he can just hit the big red button next to his bed? The one for the nurse to change his bedpan. She can bring the phone on her way in. Heh.

Ok, that was kind of low.

[jeffd]

It's a gaffe, but it isn't that big a deal. While Iran may not be supporting al-Qaeda, it is probably supporting radical shiite elements that are setting off bombs in sunni neighborhoods.

Besides, even shiite and sunni are not exactly monolithic in their behavior. It's like saying something about protestants when what you really are referring to is methodists.

No, it's actually a huge deal. First off, this wasn't a "gaffe," McCain has said it before. It betrays a simple lack of understanding of the situation.

The simple fact is that for all his reputation, McCain actually doesn't know very much about foreign affairs.

Here (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/254399569/184135.php) is a TPM post that lays out what I'm getting at.

[Lizard_King]

It's a gaffe, but it isn't that big a deal. While Iran may not be supporting al-Qaeda, it is probably supporting radical shiite elements that are setting off bombs in sunni neighborhoods.

Besides, even shiite and sunni are not exactly monolithic in their behavior. It's like saying something about protestants when what you really are referring to is methodists.

It is a big deal. We're not currently balls deep in a war where a large number of our strategic and tactical blunders has come from a profound misunderestimation of the importance and differences between Methodists and other Protestants, and if we were I would expect him not to fuck that up (repeatedly), either. It was cutting this kind of slack to Bush that got us into this mess in the first place: it turns out that a pattern of mistakes along these lines is what we call a warning sign, especially when it's coming from the 100 year occupation guy (I know that quote is being twisted, but I don't care).

On top of that, his correction is still out of the Stupid Plans for Iraq playbook. Of course the Iranians are training "extremists". Who gives a shit? Give me a call when you have a real plan to engage Iraq's problems constructively beyond the Axis of Evil bullshit that has gotten us nowhere.

[Raife]

No kidding. Someone running on a policy of increased presence in Iraq had better fucking well know the issue better than this.

[Lizard_King]

Matter of fact, if it's ok to use Al Qaeda Iraq as shorthand for "extremist", which in itself is a profoundly stupid term, then I fully endorse this fucking nuts swiftboating of McCain (http://www.wcltam.com/news/special/articledetail.cfm?articleid=23261) as an acceptable means of criticizing him. Why not, if truth and accuracy are unimportant? Give me the straight talk, AM radio guy!

[Andrew Mayer]

I'm going with "big deal".

He's not even capable of properly flinging the bullshit.

[Sarkus]

It looks like Obama is taking advantage of McCain's statement, as he should:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

If McCain previously made the same mistake, as the Dems are alleging, then I agree that this is a bigger gaffe than I initially thought.

I do find it interesting that there is a lack of major media coverage of this. A quick look at the NY Times, MSNBC, and CNN only revealed the reference above.

[Andrew Mayer]

We're up to four times (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/20/mccain-asserted-iranal-qaeda-ties-last-month/)now.