Serious Foreign Policy Person

According to Senator Lieberman, the US has been so successful from following John McCain’s advice in Iraq that we can expect Islamic extremists to stage another attack on the United States in 2009, no matter who’s elected President.

"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman, I-Conn., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."

I guess this means that by pretending Iraq is the "central front" in the fight against those who attacked us on 9/11, and burning out all of our troops, resources and attention on the Iraq "surge" instead of against al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, we’ve made it possible for them to regroup so they can plan/carry out another attack on the US. Schieffer did not ask Lieberman to explain how this result warrants an endorsement of McCain’s strategic judgment or qualifications to be Commander in Chief.

Lieberman next claimed that if we had followed Barack Obama’s (or the Democrats’) advice, Iran and al Qaeda would today be running Iraq. [C&L has the full quote/video.]

"If we had done what Senator Obama asked us to do for the last couple of years, today Iran and al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world.

So if we had scaled back our commitments to Iraq, and refocused instead on Afghanistan, as Democrats have advocated, Lieberman claims the fundamentalist Shia regime in Iran and their Shia brethren who constitute the majority in Iraq would have partnered with al Qaeda, the extremist Sunnis who hate the Shias, and allowed them to run Iraq. Remember, Lieberman is the guy McCain counts on to distinguish Sunnis, Shias, al Qaeda and Iran.

I have a couple of questions for the Sunday talk shows:

(1) Given the absurdity of Lieberman’s arguments, why do you still invite him on your shows and treat him as a serious person?

(2) Strategic decisions are about choices. Since the decision to invade and then "surge" in Iraq was also a decision to short troops and resources for Afghanistan and Pakistan, why are McCain and his surrogates never asked to take responsibility for the consequences in Afghanistan and Pakistan? For example:

Taliban and al Qaeda have regrouped and become stronger in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Most analysts and the Pentagon (including Petreaus) consider the Afghan-Pakistan border the most dangerous region to US security?

– US/NATO casualties are now higher in Afghanistan than in Iraq, and

– Afghan civilian deaths have risen dramatically?

Never mind the consequences of spending $12 billion per month in Iraq while the US economy goes to hell in a handbasket.

Update: For more on the tradeoff between Iraq and Afghanistan, see this CAP article; also, McCain statement contradicting Adm. Mullen via ThinkProgress.

Related posts:

  1. When the Women of Afghanistan Speak, Does Howard Dean Listen?
  2. You Got To Move
  3. Intelligence Shortfalls And The Waziristan Offensive
  4. Lieberman on Point for Senate DADT Repeal
  5. Come Saturday Morning: The Neocon Drinking Game!