McCain: Osama, Petreaus Agree

I just thought the highlighted sentence was a unique way to make the point.

"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."

Comments

Why are we letting our enemies pick our battle grounds?

It is the height bad strategy to let your enemy tell you the location of the fight. I would certainly think they wouldn't say their home base of northwest Pakistan.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | March 24, 2008 8:30 PM

I really REALLY hope this is the argument they take going forward because, frankly, the facts do not support that statement.

If this is the centerpiece of the McCain campaign then it's a good argument that the Democratic party can win.

Posted by Rhoda | March 24, 2008 8:35 PM

I knew he "Betrayed Us". Neyar yar yar yar yar yar yar

Posted by Not Eli Pariser | March 24, 2008 8:50 PM

And, my friends, it's called propaganda, my friends.

Posted by Jake | March 24, 2008 9:17 PM

frankly, the facts do not support that statement.

Say, how's the weather in Waziristan, Rhoda? I figure you must be there, hanging out with Osama and the doctor, if you're in a position to know the facts about Al Qaeda's designs and intentions so much better than Gen Petraeus.

And since Brian says we're free to pick any battlegrounds we like, why don't you ask them if they'd agree to meet for competitive mumblety-peg at Staples Center in LA? That'd be real convenient!

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 24, 2008 9:36 PM

An unfortunate choice of words. Osama's better than the Dems? Come on...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by mpp | March 24, 2008 9:51 PM

CK, Al Queda is based in Pakistan. Why would you fight them where their leadership isn't(Iraq) and let them regrow and expand their operations from Waziristan outward?

General Petraeus executes the mission given to him. He follows orders. That is the design of our system. Military commanders don't decide where the army goes. When things are going well in Iraq..Bush is the decider. When times are going tough, he has to listen to his commanders on the ground. It is passing on the burden of responsibility by holding a military commander up for political purposes, and daring the democrats to attack him, as Moveon.org recklessly did.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | March 24, 2008 10:00 PM

Of course, Bin Laden and McCain are on the same page.

Bin Laden wants McCain to be president.

What better way to recruit suicide bombers than to have an American president who speaks of a hundred years war?

What better way to preserve Al Qaeda than to have a president who coddles Musharraf and thinks that we should allow BIn Laden to operate in Waziristan with impunity.

And McCain benefits from Bin Laden actions, because whenever voters are scared, the media directs them to vote for the republicans who will "keep us safe" by bombing someone, anyone.

McCain/Bin Laden '08!!!!

Posted by RKA | March 24, 2008 10:13 PM

Hey Marc even Obama girl is ahead of you in some stuff.
http://www.barelypolitical.com/obama-girl/episode/hill_get_out_20070324

Seriously the race is over, the media needs to stop feeding the trolls (the Clinton Camp).

Posted by eh? | March 24, 2008 10:42 PM

The GOP: Taking the propaganda of our enemies at face value since September 11, 2001!

Posted by joejoejoe | March 24, 2008 11:09 PM

Considering John McCain's weakness on national security and foreign policy, we should take what he says with a large spoon of salt.

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/john-mccains-iraq-war-five-year.html

Posted by MC | March 24, 2008 11:20 PM

Why do we let our enemy pick the battleground some ask?

You gotta be kidding me? You'd prefer we pull out of Iraq and the pick the battle ground... hmmm in America?

I suppose when Hitler said his aim was to conquer Russia and England we should have replied, "We can't trust nazi propoganda"

No, instead we beat him at his own game. He said he was going to fight and win in those places and the Allies made sure he didn't.

Now that Osama says he is going to fight and win in Iraq you guys are setting him up for victory when you pull out. If that is where the terrorists are determined to win how about we beat them? It's not unbeatable... if it is we're screwed, because what happens when they come here and do the same...

Posted by sam | March 24, 2008 11:40 PM

Why do we let our enemy pick the battleground some ask?

You gotta be kidding me? You'd prefer we pull out of Iraq and the pick the battle ground... hmmm in America?

I suppose when Hitler said his aim was to conquer Russia and England we should have replied, "We can't trust nazi propoganda"

No, instead we beat him at his own game. He said he was going to fight and win in those places and the Allies made sure he didn't.

Now that Osama says he is going to fight and win in Iraq you guys are setting him up for victory when you pull out. If that is where the terrorists are determined to win how about we beat them? It's not unbeatable... if it is we're screwed, because what happens when they come here and do the same...

Posted by sam | March 24, 2008 11:43 PM

CK, Al Queda is based in Pakistan. Why would you fight them where their leadership isn't(Iraq) and let them regrow and expand their operations from Waziristan outward?

Saying that AQ is based in Pakistan is a dreadful oversimplification. Even more dubious is the notion that an operation aimed at permanently extinguishing AQ in all areas of Pakistan would be simpler, easier, quicker, and less costly, or more in the US interest, than maintaining stability in Iraq and environs.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 25, 2008 12:17 AM

Sam, you discredit yourself the moment you bring in Hitler. Explain to me how we beat him at his own game by fighting him in Iraq when he one core principle and rallying cry is that we have to expel the foreign occupiers out of our muslim holy lands.

CK, we dramatically weakened Al Queda with the war in Afghanistan. But we moved all of our resources - intelligence, military, policy, international relations, and general focus - away and to Iraq. We completely our mission in Iraq, successfully. It is now time for the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility, like the Kurds in the north, for the security in their own country.

You can't tell me that Iraq isn't hurting the global effort against Al Queda. Every day we are in Iraq we create 1000 more nameless, faceless Bin Ladens, not to mention the worse impact which is justifying the Muslim world as a whole's tacit support for Bin Laden. How can the majority of Iraqis who just want to live safely side with us when they feel we are an occupier opposing our will? You can't ignore the public opinion in Iraq, which is lost in this discussion. 90% want us out and 60% think it is just fine to kill Americans. And you're telling me that my tax dollars should go to this country because a fanatic in the Hindu Kush mountains, whose main objective is to see us mired in a decades long war(remember the soviets where they sapped a superpower of its wealth?) and see our economy suffer because of oil prices, should dictate where, how, and when we fight? No thank you. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Uzbekistan. Tajikistan. Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan. That is where we battle him. On his turf. Could you imagine what we could have done in those countries with the kind of money we wasted in Iraq, a war of choice?

His goal was to turn the greater muslim world against the U.S. and onto his side. Everyday we stay in Iraq is a victory for Al Queda. Iraq is the perfect country for this because we are seen in Bin Laden's eyes as enablers of the heretical shia who are killing sunnis. As we all know, Al Queda practices a branch of sunni Islam called Wahhabism and they categorize shias and americans as the same, as in we both need to die if we don't see things their way. Sunnis are the majority, Shia the minority, but it is reversed in Iraq. So to the greater Muslim world, we are helping the minority party(shia) oppress the majority party(sunni) thereby breeding hatred for americans and sympathy for Al Queda. Not converts en masse to their cause, but enough reasonable doubt to allow them to convert the weak, crazy, whatever to their cause to build their movement.

We need to cut off the head of the snake in Pakistan and stop playing with its tail in Iraq.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | March 25, 2008 1:05 AM

Brian your understanding is clearly lacking.

Being in Iraq creates far less terrorists than leaving Iraq. It is a basic fact that terrorism thrives in chaos and there is no chaos greater than failed states (think Somolia). Iraq does not have the security apparatus nessecary to maintain peace on a national level. The result of a pull out would be power struggles and civil war where each side looks to make its own security much like what happened in Croatia. Ethnic groups in neighbouring states would come in and help the efforts and you'd quickly have a regional conflagaration and the sunni re-radicalized all over again. The awakening would end in an instant and AQ would be recruiting like mad.

Also, this notion that we can pick out battlefield is just silly. AQ is in Iraq to kill American soldiers sure but they have also publically stated that they are there because they intend to create a new base. They are not, as you say, based in Pakistan. They used to be based in Saudi Arabia, then they moved to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and stayed all the way until 911, and now when the heat turned up they got out and are believed to be in one of the central asian -stans or SYRIA.

Posted by Jesse | March 25, 2008 1:31 AM

First, Mr. Ambinder, we need the correct quote. This is straight from the AP website:

“For the first time, I have seen Usama bin Laden and General (David) Petraeus in agreement, and, that is, a central battleground in the battle against Al Qaeda is in Iraq today."

Notice the difference? A central battleground, not THE central battleground. Not that Sen. McCain caught it either; he appears to blunt for such a nuance. But the distinction changes the entire meaning of the quote from Gen. Petraeus. I haven't seen Gen. Petraeus make comments that pertained to events outside of his area of responsibility (Iraq), nor should he. The general's remark is undeniably true, Iraq is a major battleground in the fight against Al Qaeda. Whether it SHOULD be one is not in his purview. That is for our civilian leaders to decide. It is also undeniably true that THE major recruiting cry of Al Qaeda in Iraq is the urge to repel the foreign infidel invaders. If there were no troops to repel, the sales pitch to their potential recruits becomes much less clear. Those are two facts among many which the next President will have to sift through to decide on a future course of action.

Posted by PatricktheRogue | March 25, 2008 1:38 AM

I suspect, Brian, that you experience in or study of military affairs is minimal. Whatever your level of knowledge, your application of it seems to be limited to an incidentally imaginative recitation of familiar, variously obsolete, simplistic, dubious, and fantastical assumptions.

One passage in particular stands out:

Afghanistan. Pakistan. Uzbekistan. Tajikistan. Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan. That is where we battle him. On his turf. Could you imagine what we could have done in those countries with the kind of money we wasted in Iraq...?

To answer your question: Other than kill a lot of people, and de-stabilize relations with and among three or four nuclear-armed states - not much.

Before you start proposing military expeditions to that part of the world, you should take a look at some topographical maps and population references, then compare them to Iraq. That might give you the beginning of an understanding about what you're proposing. The old saying that "amateurs discuss strategy, professional discuss logistics" applies exponentially in this part of the world. It's no exaggeration to suggest that the US could mobilize to World War II levels militarily, and still remain incapable of policing that terrain - except possibly after rendering very large portions of it uninhabitable.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 25, 2008 2:13 AM

Brian is just parrotting standard Lefty dogma:

1. The REAL CENTER of all radical Islamist activity directed against the West and Asia is the 6 surviving leaders of one of 60 violent Jihadi groups, now hiding out in butt-fuck Pakistan.

2. If we can only capture them and give them full ACLU-represented trialsin civilian court, the world will love us again and radical Islam, headless without the peerless masterminds Binnie and Ayman, will collapse like a pile of cards.

3. Every day we are in Iraq we create 1000 more nameless, faceless Bin Ladens, not to mention the worse impact which is justifying the Muslim world as a whole's tacit support for Bin Laden.

That is the Lefty Dem theory that deranged radical Islamoids just sit around with their thumbs up their butts and peacefully nibble on goat meat and discuss nuances of their wonderful religion of Peace until America vexes them and forces them to rise in their morally superior angry thousands to avenge warmongering American bastards.

4. The companion is the Lefty belief in their version of loaves and fishes, or the Hydra myth. Like for every Nazi you kill, you create 10 new ones, making Nazis invincible if you fight them.. For every Al Qaeda warrior killed, you create 10 new ones. It's stupid as shit, but Lefties believe things become true by mindlessly chanting they are true.

5. Any combat front Lefties cannot understand "is a distraction". An enemy scattered over 70 countries should not be fought in any of those places - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UK, the Philippines, Morocco, India, etc...because they are distractions to getting the "6 big people" hiding out in the one place where terrain and logistics and trying to find 6 people in a supportive local population of 50 million, as CK MacLeod says, would be doubtful at working if we Draft up to WWII levels. No Lefty Dem has any intent of invading Pakistan or throwing 300,000 troops in Afghanistan anyways - it it just a bullshit talking point saying IF we ever favor military action, which we don't, we would hit Pakistan, but trust us we won't - we only wish to show Iraq is not the "Real Front".

Posted by chris ford | March 25, 2008 7:40 AM

You fluffed the punctuation. It should be McCain, Petreaus, Osama agree. When are folks going to wake up to the way we are all being manipulated to a common (political) agenda.

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 25, 2008 8:39 AM

chris ford - wait a second! Are you telling me that the Democrats' promises of a robust and aggressive effort against AQ in Central Asia are just about as credible and trustworthy as all of their promises back in '02-'03 to stick by the Iraqis through thick and thin?

How disillusioning. Here I was counting on Obama or Hillary "ending" the Iraq war by the force of rhetoric alone and spending all the money they've set aside for Great Society 2 a second time on Vietnamistan - all while balancing the budget and stimulating the economy with higher taxes!

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 25, 2008 11:40 AM

Chris, CK, and Jesse.....You are all operating under the assumption that Iraq will be a failed state in which Al Queda will thrive when we leave. Leaving Iraq allows us to do this. Explain to me how will this happen? You war supporters need to explain this.

Obviously, when you put large numbers of US troops in the region, we will tamp down violence. But the bigger force was Sadr's cease-fire. When Shia want to kill sunnis, we can't stop it. So how do you think that Al Queda will be able to take up residence in a shia controlled state hostile to them and their sunni hosts? That is the fundamental flaw in all of your arguments. They won't have allies in the government like they had in Afghanistan. Where will they find bases to operate? Explain this and your prognostications can be taken seriously.

The more you keep insisting that Afghanistan was a failed state and Al Queda took up residence there, so therefore if Iraq becomes a failed state, Al Queda will take up residence there, in spite of the dynamics on the ground of the population, the more you discredit yourself.

The only thing preventing Al Queda from being wiped out in Iraq is the presence of the U.S. soldiers preventing 8 million sunnis from being slaughtered by the shia militias.

Also, have you conflated your ideology with mine while reading my response. I am in no way advocating invading any more of the 'stans', but for an increase in military force in Afghanistan, but all other military and intelligence resources with the surrounding nation states while working in conjunction with their governments.

Posted by Brian | March 25, 2008 7:17 PM

Well, if I were hiding out in Pakistan, I'd totally be telling my enemies that the best place to fight me was in Iraq.

It's good the press has such respect for McCain's foreign policy genius. Othewise his "they want us to fight 'em where they ain't, and I intends to oblige!" attitude mightbe worth mentioning to the voters...a lot...

Posted by anon | March 25, 2008 7:54 PM

Brian, you seem confused on the geography and demographics of Iraq. Yes, it is majority shia but there are large swaths of land inhabited by sunni exclusively.

So, in a failed state (all states in a three way, regional civil war are failed) AQ could easily set up shop in the wide swaths of Sunni controlled land. Shia militias are like local police and gangs - they are not a national army and would not be able to raid Sunni tribal areas to destroy the AQ bases.

Posted by Jesse | March 25, 2008 10:34 PM