During the congressional hearings of Gen. David Petraeus, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., once again proved why he is one of the few politicians who actually "gets it" when it comes to Iraq. Mr. Feingold asked a question that directly addresses Iraq's role in the war on terror. Yet it is one that our government has yet to adequately answer. Mr. Feingold asked, "Which is more important to defeating al-Qaida — the situation in Afghanistan or that situation in Iraq?" Shockingly, this was a question that neither Mr. Petraeus nor U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker was willing to answer.

Mr. Feingold, not shockingly, was upset. "With all due respect, these two critical leaders here in our government, who I have great respect for, are not willing to seriously comment about how this relates to the larger global fight against terrorism."

Mr. Petraeus defended himself by saying it was not his responsibility to engage the larger war on terror. He reconciled this omission by referring Mr. Feingold's question to Adm. William Fallon, Mr. Petraeus's military superior.

Mr. Petraeus's defense illuminates how the Bush administration sought to fluff up the Petraeus speech for six months, despite not even addressing the war on terror at large. Surely, this had to be more than a stage show to promote war propaganda? I mean, this is a general so important that moveon.org received a congressional censure for questioning his credibility!

So, the question becomes: Where was the Central Command head Mr. Fallon, the man in charge of all operations in the Middle East, to answer this key question?

In the four major hearings about Iraq since 2005, both CENTCOM Cmdr. Gen. John Abizaid and Multinational Force Cmdr. Gen. George Casey briefed Congress together to provide just this perspective. Yet, this changed when Mr. Abizaid was replaced with Mr. Fallon and Mr. Casey with Mr. Petraeus. But why would the construction of the most important hearings relating to the war on terror change when the stakes are at their highest? Why would the Bush administration not want the American people to hear from Mr. Petraeus's boss during this highly anticipated hearing?

The Washington Post provides context for this issue, by citing both professional and personal issues between the men. "'Bad relations?' said a senior civilian official with a laugh. 'That’s the understatement of the century. … If you think Armageddon was a riot, that’s one way of looking at it.'"

The image of an Armageddon-like dissent between these men and the military at large is further enunciated by the Inter-Press Service, which reports that, "Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be 'an ass-kissing little chickenshit' and added, 'I hate people like that.'"

But certainly it couldn't be only personal issues preventing these men from testifying together. Why wouldn't the Bush administration promote Mr. Fallon's endorsement if he was really willing to make it?

The fact is, given the evidence, he isn't. Mr. Fallon often cites, as Mr. Feingold has, the need to prepare for other theaters of battle, particularly the Pakistan-Afghani border where Osama bin Laden has found safe haven. According to an Inter-Press Service report, Mr. Fallon even believed "the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region."

The military split over whether to continue the fight in Iraq or redeploy adequate troops to secure the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is certainly an issue the White House did not want to highlight. It is to Mr. Feingold's credit that he is one of the few people in Congress — and the mainstream media, for that matter — to expose and enunciate it.

This is a crucial observation, especially considering the fact that the man we aimed to capture "dead or alive" is operating freely while al-Qaida grows in strength. Furthermore, his most recent audio message, delivered following the Petraeus hearings, called for a "jihad" against Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. This should be of great concern to U.S. interests, not only because of the large nuclear stockpile that Pakistan has amassed, but also considering the fact that Osama bin Laden is more popular than Mr. Musharraf in Pakistan, according to a recent poll.

Our country needs to heed the warnings of Mr. Feingold and Mr. Fallon and take these threats from al-Qaida much more seriously. Even if al-Qaida is all bluster, is continuing the Iraq war really worth the risk of an empowered al-Qaida toppling Pakistan?

For Mr. Feingold, the answer is no. In his losing efforts to convince the Senate to enact the Feingold-Reid redeployment legislation last week, Mr. Feingold once again cut to the heart of the issue. "By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can finally focus on what should be our top national security priority — waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and its affiliates."

Our country needs more leaders like Mr. Feingold, men with the fortitude to expose what the Iraq war really is in the context of the war on terror — namely, an opportunistic diversion deemed more important than bringing those who attacked us on Sept. 11 to justice.

Harry Waisbren ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in communication arts.