John Mccain Versus Osama Bin Laden

John McCain pledged during the Republican primary to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell. But he told Larry King on Monday that he won't go after bin Laden in his new sanctuary in northwestern Pakistan. Since Cerberus is not known to be perched on the Pakistani border, which is it? McCain keeps complaining that he can't break through the media's obsession with Barack Obama. But he should be grateful for their diverted gaze, because if anyone was actually paying attention to his incoherent ramblings they would find out that he doesn't have a firm grasp of his own foreign policy positions and a shocking ignorance of the threats arrayed against the United States.

It is equal parts depressing and alarming to learn of the resurgence of al-Qaida and the spread of violent Islamist ideology. US and European intelligence agencies concluded last year that al-Qaida and its senior leadership had regrouped in the tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan and that the terrorist organization had the ability to plan, train for and orchestrate attacks on the US homeland. During that time, the Pakistani Taliban has strengthened in the same areas along the Afghan border and dramatically increased cross border attacks, including the attempted assassination of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a suicide bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.

This development is not an accident, as the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) that helped start the Taliban in Afghanistan is actively supporting the militants. It has gotten so bad that the deputy director of the CIA flew to Pakistan last month to confront the government with evidence that the ISI was linked to the perpetrators of the Indian embassy bombing.

But McCain doesn't seem to know or care about the Pakistani government's direct ties to terrorists. When King asked him whether, as president, he would send in US forces to get bin Laden should he find out where in Pakistan he was hiding, McCain responded: "Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. … But I want to assure you I will get Osama bin Laden as president of the United States, and I will bring him to justice no matter what it takes."

That just doesn't make any sense. How can you pledge to bring bin Laden to justice "no matter what it takes", or to "follow him to the gates of hell", if you rule out sending US forces into Pakistan, which is looking more and more like exactly what it will take to get him?

There certainly can be a reasonable debate about whether it is a good idea to send US troops into such a hostile environment, due to concerns that it will further fuel anti-Americanism. I happen to think that the prospect of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is worth that risk. But in any event, that's not what McCain is saying. He's ruling it out because "Pakistan is a sovereign nation." That is not going to change any time soon. I guess in a McCain administration, any operation to capture or kill bin Laden will be conducted at the whim of the Pakistani government, the same government that has ties to the Taliban and al-Qaida. That's a great plan.

With a President McCain comfortable with bin Laden safe behind the shield of Pakistani sovereignty, it seems a little odd to ask him what he would do in the unlikely event that bin Laden is captured during his presidency. But he was asked that on CNN last week, and his answer was surprisingly reasonable. McCain said: "We have various options. The Nuremberg Trials are certainly an example of the kind of tribunal that we could move forward with."

Its surprising, not because it comes from McCain, but because after Barack Obama said in June that Nuremberg would be a good model for any bin Laden trial, this is how McCain responded: "Senator Obama's failure to comprehend the implication of the supreme court decision he embraced and the historical precedent of Nuremberg raise serious questions about judgment and experience and whether senator Obama is ready to assume the awesome responsibilities of commander in chief."

So McCain thinks a Nuremberg-style trial for bin Laden is great idea, except when Obama proposes it. Then it's another example of how Obama is not ready to be commander in chief. That's kind of like when McCain says Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq is surrender but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's 16-month timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq is "a pretty good timetable".

McCain has built his entire political career around his experience as a prisoner of war. That service and sacrifice deserves the unyielding gratitude of all Americans. What it does not deserve is the blind acceptance that because he was a POW, he is automatically an expert on national security and foreign policy. Wake up people and listen to what he is saying. If anyone other than McCain had demonstrated this level of confusion on critical questions of national security, they would never be considered a serious candidate for president.