ISSUE: John McCain's statements about terror links

OUR VIEW: Republican plays on experience but misspeaks on system of alliances

Republicans and others were quick to jump in 2006 when a Democratic congressional leader made public statements reflecting misunderstanding of which Middle East groups were Sunni and which were Shiite Muslim.

In line to become head of the House Intelligence Committee, Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes identified al-Qaida as a predominantly Shiite group, when the terror group so targeted by the United States is universally Sunni. And Reyes didn't know much about Hezbollah, a primary ally of Shiite Iran, even though the group was waging war against Israel in Lebanon at the time.

Reyes deserved to be taken to task for lack of knowledge about a region where America is sacrificing lives and dollars. How can a leader formulate policy without a clear understanding of key divisions in the region? It appears the question now can be asked of Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting Sen. John McCain.

Traveling in Iraq and around the Mideast accompanied by supporting Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, McCain more than once addressed the issue of Iran and its role in Iraq. Only he misspoke about a key ingredient in the equation.

Speaking in Jordan, McCain, who has said al-Qaida will win the day if America exits Iraq, blamed Iran for training the organization's fighters. It was one of three instances in which he made the contention in a week, prompting Lieberman to correct him via whisper. McCain then stated Iran was training terrorists undermining U.S. efforts in Iraq. That may be, but the link between Iran and al-Qaida, by virtually every measure, is non-existent.

This is more than a case of misstatement. Failure to understand the alliances and factions in Iraq alone means there is no way to effectively formulate policy. And while McCain is surrounded by people who surely do know, how can he not be immediately in touch with the matter? He has built his candidacy around experience with foreign affairs.

In discussing the Iraqi government and its failures, its being dominated by Shiites is a key factor in the inability to bring Sunnis to cooperate. And Shiite Iran is a key government ally.

The Shiite majority, held in check by Sunni (and a secular leader) Saddam Hussein, fought back when Sunnis rebelled against the post-Saddam order. That led to the cycle of death and killing, with Iran on the side of the Shiite militias in killing Sunnis. Both Shiite and Sunni were battling U.S. forces.

Sunni-dominated al-Qaida sent its forces into Iraq to fight Americans, most insurgents allegedly coming through Syria. They fomented and fostered violence among Shiite and Sunni. They were allied with the Sunni militias in fighting the United States and the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government.

As McCain boasts, the biggest U.S. successes to date in Iraq have come in convincing Sunni militias to turn against al-Qaida.

Now, who's to guarantee that the entangled web of the region hasn't produced alliances and operations that at least temporarily defy the order of things? We certainly won't, but John McCain is seeking to be president. If there are so many questions about experience on one side, countered by boasts of the vast McCain resume, a better story is required. McCain has not heard the last of the matter and the fall campaign will be a show-and-tell on just how much all his experience has taught him.

You must be logged in to comment.