Just past the one hour mark of Tuesday night's debate, Senator McCain made the following statement: "If we had done what Senator Obama had wanted to do in Iraq, which is set a date for withdrawal - something General Petraeus, our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said would be a 'very dangerous course to take for America' we would be in a much wider war..."
What is the problem with Senator McCain's statement? General Petraeus is not, nor has he ever been, a member or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That position is currently held by Admiral Mullen of the United States Navy.
Is it too much to ask that a veteran military officer with aspirations to be Commander-in-Chief know who is and isn't a member of the JCS?
Senator McCain often presents his military experience as a key qualification for his presidential eligibility. Yet every member of the military, E1 to O10, is required from boot camp to know the full chain-of-command all the way to the top military leader - the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Shouldn't a sitting US Senator, especially one who claims to be such an expert on military matters, know at least as much as a fresh recruit?
I realize that the Republicans have tried their best to fashion General Petraeus as Bush's Magister Equitum. However, General Petraeus has no title to positions which he has not been appointed. Nor does a presidential candidate have any excuse for not knowing the positions of this country's top military leaders.