McCain reverses course on Afghanistan policy, follows Obama's lead
By Steve Benen Wednesday Jul 16, 2008 2:20pmWhile talking about the war in Afghanistan yesterday, John McCain predictably went after Barack Obama, saying Obama “has no strategy.” It was an odd attack, given the fact that McCain had just flip-flopped on his Afghanistan policy, and embraced Obama’s strategy as his own.
Here’s McCain yesterday, talking about his plan to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, in order to bring an Iraq-like strategy to the country.
The key quote, of course, was pretty straightforward: “[O]ur commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades. Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them.”
What’s important to realize, though, is that while Obama has been arguing for a year that he wants to send additional troops to Afghanistan, McCain has always held the opposite position, opposing the deployment of more U.S. troops, and arguing that any additional troops come from NATO.
Yesterday, however, McCain reversed course, change his position, and embraced Obama’s policy as his own. As Josh Marshall explained, “So let’s all say it out loud: McCain is now copying Obama’s position on Afghanistan. And with troops that he doesn’t have since he’s against pulling any out of Iraq.”
But it gets worse. McCain has actually held multiple positions on Afghanistan in the last seven days.
Last Tuesday, McCain did not want to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
By yesterday morning, McCain said he does want to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
Almost immediately after giving his speech — literally just minutes after the event — McCain said he didn’t exactly mean what he’d said in his prepared remarks, and argued that the additional troops could come from NATO, not U.S. forces.
And then a few hours later, McCain refined his policy a little more, saying the additional troops would come from NATO and U.S. forces.
Remember, the premise of John McCain’s presidential campaign is a) his expertise on foreign policy and national security; and b) his consistency.
Login or Register to post comments.
McCain has been a freakin' pinwheel. Of course only MSNBC has noticed.
Isn't it fun being a viable demographic again!
Oh...and FRIIIIIIIIIIIIST!
Liberal AND Proud @ 2:
fail.
They need to STFU about Iran to keep oil prices going down.
Time to withdraw from Iraq.
Hm, a better solution in Afghanistan would be to talk to the local tribes and convince them to police their own areas. As a mostly Hanafi area, and a moderate Hanafism with a strong Sufi bent, appealing to the local tribal leaders and fiqh scholars to motivate people against the (in Afghan eyes) heresies of the Taliban would work much better than adding more people to the foreign troops in Afghanistan that burn and destroy Pashtu and Farsi villages, adding us to their enemy list in addition to the Taliban.
But that wouldn't mean the shiny toys could kill people so the military will never go for it. (retch.)
The Backpeddle Express. Next stop, Flipflop Junction. All aboard!
McCain's pathetic. He has to depend on his script, and spends most of his time reading it. You'd think a presidential candidate would be able to articulate his positions.
Then again, look at the past 8 years.......
Obama wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan! What a great vision! We have secured the oil fields in Iraq. Now move some of the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Not to many. Obama understands we need to maintain presence in Iraq. Those permanent bases are permanent for a reason.
Five years in a prison camp has turned McCAIN"S BRAIN into a mushy lump.
Holy confusion, Batman! McBush is making ME feel senile!
McSame has clearly shown his prowess at playing "Follow the Leader" -- he evidently finds the game irresistible.
*
Look how they McCain and Bush and the rest of them went batty when Obama announced he would engage in discussions with Iran. I recall the whole 'appeasement' b.s. on the 'news' when this occurred. Now the Bush Admin is sending an envoy there and they're talking about establishing a presence in Tehran. ugh.
Great point....McCain is like watching a ARICEPT commercial...he does not even remember what he is supposed to forget...scary...worse that Bush as far as intact brain waves ?
Obama was smart to come out with a strategy ahead of the McForgetful...No5 is right though....Obama would be smart to get well schooled on the tribal issues of the region...
Jolly Roger at RECONSTITUTION has a great post up about the tribal politics of this Region...
justin @ 3:
Is it the curse of being a liberal?
*
McCain just wants to be Obama's VP.
I hardly believe that Obama's desire to send more American troops into Afghanistan for a year, where they can continue to suppress and brutalize the Afghan people, kicking down their doors and raining bombs down upon their villages and homes, is a laudable position for a "peace candidate" to take. This militant strategy by the agent of hope does not give much hope to the Afghan people that their lives will get any better as long as American leaders like Barack Obama continue to believe that the way to help other countries is by sending in American soldiers into their lands. With politicians likd Obama, it is no wonder that so much of the world hates and fears and loathes the United States.
The problem will be if Grandpy McSame claims this issue as his own and the MSM backs him up.
i'm for against it!!!
McCain is trying to stave off senility as long as possible. Unfortunately, he forgets that he's trying to do that too.
Erroll @ 16:
I believe the best thing for Afghanistan would be to help the local tribal leaders alleviate the poverty in their areas, preferably with American Hanafis doing the help instead of the usual American "helper" (Fundie Christian) in Afghanistan. If the spell of poverty caused by decades of civil war since 1979 can be alleviated, or at least moderated, people will have no reason to even consider supporting a (to them) heretical Muslim sect like the Taliban. And Afghanistan also would recover the fairly comfortable (by Central Asian standards) existence it had prior to the Soviet invasion.
So the troops that are just finishing up in Iraq get immediately shipped over to Afghanistan?
Seems like a realistic strategy.
Interesting how Steve Benen links to an article from the November/December 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs, many months before McCain's surge stabilized Iraq. Now that Iraq is stable, McCain's decision of another surge is entirely consistent with his message of making Iraq safe before surging in Afghanistan. Glad Steve mentions NATO, since Senator Obama the chair of the Senate's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has some oversight in Afghanistan through NATO. What leadership has Obama shown in pushing NATO to provide more troops in Afghanistan to assist our brave Soldiers and Marines? Change you can't believe in...
OT... but what do you want to bet that the White House coordinated its repeal of the Executive Order banning offshore drilling with the oil companies.
Bush made the purely symbolic announcement, then oil took a historic plunge in prices, and, like clockwork, Fox and the other right wing media started pointed to how Bush made oil prices plummet as investors dumped their commodities in fear.
Please, Don't throw Exxon into the briar patch!
Well we can't have a "leader" like this!
Why he is just a FOLLOWER!
Look He's following OUR GUY!!!!
Oh no! That's not the way to lead!
c)His consistent insistence on revealing that a and b are absolute bullshit..........
whooka @ 12:
The US government has actually been directly talking to Iran for the first time in decades under Bush's terms, mostly at regional conferences about Iraq. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, all of them wouldn't bother trying to directly talk to the Islamic republic, but Bush has started this direct dialogue, admittedly in multilateral talks, but still, he's outdone Clinton. Iran and the US have mutual interests in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran has no desire to see fanatical Sunni Islam on either border. Bush may finally be waking up to this need, at least before McPapen goes in and starts bombing.
Honestly, as much evil as Bush has done, getting the Islamic Republic back into direct dialogue with us is something.
Got a question for you:
How many times have republicans COPIED democrats to find their way out of the forest?
The only reason our nation is falling is that they can't get answers from our side these days because we aren't speaking.
It's time for a permanent divorce from these folks.
The guy who knows how to win a war apparently doesn't know how to read a troop deployment report. This is what you get when you run a Naval Academy guy who came in 5th from the bottom of his class.
I'll tell you one thing -- this guy is definately stupid enough to be the president of this country.
9 amy Says: Five years in a prison camp has turned McCAIN”S BRAIN into a mushy lump.
Is mcsame's mushy lump the only mushy lump? Only his mcc*unt knows fer sure.
knud @ 8:
Um, what? The US has let Afghanistan fester and is following the same bad ideas that turned Iraq into a clusterfuck before we hit on the radical idea of talking with locals. I just hope we try what worked in 2007 (working with locals) instead of what didn't (more foreign troops burning and destroying cities already ravaged by an endless civil war.)
Leave grandpa alone. He can't remember where he heard that great idea.
John McCain: What will be his opinion today?
"I'm John McCain, and I approve this message. Wait, no I don't. Wait, yes I do."
"Remember, the premise of John McCain’s presidential campaign is a) his expertise on foreign policy and national security; and b) his consistency."
He is consistent. Consistently inconsistent.
Climb aboard the Straight-Talk train wreck.
CHARLIE @ 22:
Sigh...
Anybody who fell for the change line was naive and a sucker. Obama will not and cannot change the system enough in eight years after 60+ years of ruining it. It would require about 5 straight two-term Democratic terms of reformers to fully unsnarl the US from the mess the Cold War created. Obama is a reformer, but he will at best fix a small part of the mess, not all of it. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes in 2009, not after everything the Cold War and 90s Presidents have dumped on our doorstep.
Amazing Flip Flop McBush has done it again and Bush sends people to talk to Iran.
All Obama's ideas!!! He already accomplished more than Bush in almost 8 years.
And how about Mccain regarding Cuba , what ( whats that ) diplomacy " he Mccain ) will be happy when Fidel meets Karl Marx " .
John just mosey on out to pasture old fella .
afghanistan and u.s. have already agreed to permanent bases.........i thought i heard largest u.s. base is in afghanistan can be seen from space.......some factions of their government want the stability and the impact on the economy.
Carol @ 35:
Bush first talked to Iran in a multilateral meeting in 2007 in the middle of the surge. That he's moving from multilateral talks to resuming diplomatic relations, though, definitely showed some influence from popular opinion.
constituent @ 37:
No, there's no way in Hell you can build a base that big. You can't even see the Great Wall of China from space, nor even a city the size of New York. Whoever said that was a liar, and ill-informed on how damn far away satellites imaging Earth from space are.
The US won't create stability, it will only enhance a civil war raging for nearly 30 years now, and Afghanistan may be driven into the arms of the foreign heretics eventually out of desperation (and anger at US Christianizing.)
14 Trittydi Says:
Is it the curse of being a liberal?
*
Nahh...the curse of being a liberal is optimism, a sense of fellowship to society, a sense of humor and a really healthy sex life.
No underage boys, rendevous' in bathroom stalls or repressed tendencies for this liberal guy! : 0 )
LMAO! meanwhile Ashcroft is trying to defend water boarding as not being torture.
Ashcroft defends waterboarding before House panel
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/ashcroft.waterboarding/index.html
What an asshole
How many brigades will we need in Iran, McLame? Everyone agrees that air attacks alone will not assure the destruction of those vital targets. It's important to keep defending the American people and their interestsa round the globe.
Please excuse me while I vomit.
Exotic Blue Lensman @ 42:
Lessee, it will take 3 times the troops to occupy Iran at minimum and the entire US Defense budget for 08 just for one year of an Iran war. About as stupid as revolting against monarchy to get a dictatorial Emperor with a conquest fetish instead.
What a waste of time, money and soldiers in Afghanistan. I guess dumbasses didn't learn much from when the Soviet Union invaded and tried to hold it. They think they can stabilize the country and build an oil pipeline through it. Never gonna happen. Just another neverending war for the military industrial complex.
McCain the Liar @ 44:
The problem with a perpetual war is eventually it turns a prosperous (compared with the rest of the planet, at least) empire to Orwell's Oceania, where "astronomical numbers of shoes are produced according to the Five Year Plan and half the population of Oceania is barefoot."
General_Rennenkampf @ 39:
general i'm looking for that base size reference i may have misundersood or it was entire land staked out as base....airfields
anyways i may agree with you as far as not stabilizing
maybe more about encircling china. the warlords seem to run a large portion of the country...economy is not good except for poppy
constituent @ 46:
Even so, if you can't see something the size of Shanghai or Tokyo in the daytime from space (and you can't), seeing one miserable US base in the mountainous region of Central Asia (the steppes are further north and east) is stretching it, well past the point of breaking it and into the point of shattering it.
And if you want to encircle China, Afghanistan's a helluva poor way to do it, the Afghan-Chinese border is pathetically tiny, and the Chinese could swamp the entire US force with men if they wished to. No, the invasion of Afghanistan is just the War of American Intervention in a war that hasn't ended after the Russians left.
General_Rennenkampf @ 47:
okay..............i'm waving the white flag i give
Both Obama and McCain are losers; we should be getting out of Iraq AND Afghanistan. Why are we in Afghanistan anyway? We should go after Osama and leave Afghanistan. What's the point? We haven't even been able to put a dent in the heroin production. It's just plain stupid. Troops are dying for nothing in BOTH countries.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 49:
Invading Afghanistan for the actions of a nonstate group was stupid. Invading Iraq which had nothing to do with anything related to the Afghan war, was criminal.
9 amy Says: Five years in a prison camp has turned McCAIN”S BRAIN into a mushy lump.
Is mcsame’s mushy lump the only mushy lump? Only his mcc*unt knows fer sure.
***
So what's Obama's excuse for war-mongering? I'd say 'NONE'.
And how, with the recent $52 million in campaign contributions, is Obama going to bring this to the voters attention? Is he gonna run scathing attack ads ridiculing McCain for his flip-flopping? Or is McCain goona take credit for this, like he did with Webb's G.I. bill?
Obama does know he's trailing MCain in the polls on the issue of foreign policy, right?
Both actions were absolutely criminal. It wasn't Afghans who caused 9/11 in the first place. We just killed 47 afghan civilians not too long ago while they were headed towards a wedding, 39 of them women and children. Anyone politician who is for the Iraq occupation or for the Afghanistan occupation is either stupid or wicked.
Theguy @ 53:
Yes, indeed. Al-Qaeda's a nonstate group of fanatics. It makes no sense to invade a state to get to them, isn't our technology supposed to be advanced enough it alone could have removed them without striking into Afghanistan?
empire building i mean nation building
General_Rennenkampf @ 54:
If I may expand on this a little more, the Army of God is a Christian fanatical group enjoying support among a not-inconsiderable portion of the South (that's heard of them, that is). To invade Alabama or Arkansas (assonance rules) for the actions of the Army of God blowing up a clinic in Seattle is the equivalent of the US action in Afghanistan. After invading Alabama, invading Nevada for no reason is the equivalent of Iraq. It makes no sense. Yes, the choice of Nevada was deliberate, it's a mostly secular state and has little interest in religious political tomfoolery.
The best way to conduct warfare in the 21st Century would be to develop nanotech and genetics enough to kill your enemies with technology, making the soldier and the tank obsolete. Of course, that could lead to the death of the human race, but hell, it's gonna happen sooner or later. ;)
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&It...
a video opinion on u.s. in afghanistan/pakistan
"Memo To Obama, McCain: No One Wins in a War" by Howard Zinn
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/17/10427/
WakeUpAmerica! @ 58:
The guy has some valid points. I'd add a question of did anyone win in WWII when the fascist dictatorships became communist ones in Eastern Europe, and America turned previously independent states into its empire worldwide. Or did anyone win WWI with a peace that solved nothing and set up the second one. Hell, you could ask that about any war ever. Matter of fact, someone should ask if any war is ever really..."won."
16 Erroll Says: I hardly believe that Obama’s desire to send more American troops into Afghanistan for a year, where they can continue to suppress and brutalize the Afghan people, kicking down their doors and raining bombs down upon their villages and homes, is a laudable position for a “peace candidate” to take. This militant strategy by the agent of hope does not give much hope to the Afghan people that their lives will get any better as long as American leaders like Barack Obama continue to believe that the way to help other countries is by sending in American soldiers into their lands. With politicians likd Obama, it is no wonder that so much of the world hates and fears and loathes the United States.
================================
Wrong. We hate you because of bu$h. We don't fear you, we just hate you, because you have displayed to the world you're assholes. Is that clear enough??
All good foks at C&L, and some others elsewhere-- this message does not a pply to you.
22 CHARLIE Says: Interesting how Steve Benen links to an article from the November/December 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs, many months before McCain’s surge stabilized Iraq. Now that Iraq is stable, McCain’s decision of another surge is entirely consistent with his message of making Iraq safe before surging in Afghanistan. Glad Steve mentions NATO, since Senator Obama the chair of the Senate’s Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has some oversight in Afghanistan through NATO. What leadership has Obama shown in pushing NATO to provide more troops in Afghanistan to assist our brave Soldiers and Marines? Change you can’t believe in…
===============================
Why should NATO nations want to step into an American-made war, which is run completely by the Americans (for oil and pipelines), very poorly too, and with policy that is an utter failure. You may not care about sending your kids to die for oil and cheap consumer goods, but we do.
As a citizen of a NATO country, with a lot of troops in Afghanistan, I think it's time to bring them home NOW, not send more. Clean up your own mess.
Iraq is not stable. It was a pot that was boiling over, now it's simmering. It wouldn't take much to bring it back to a boil. But that's up to the Iraqis now. American occupation keeps the simmering rolling along. They will never accept you as occupiers. Perhaps you've never been to Asia? It ain't America, that's for sure.
McCain's idea to flood the area with a spy network, shows how little he truly understands military, and intel, strategy and tactics. To get them anywhere near where the Taliban, or al Queda are, they would stand-out like a red beacon. The people that live in these regions, have been doing so for generations beyond count. The enemy would be looking for 'strangers' arriving in their area. The locals would give them up.
Setting up a network usually takes many years. We worked closely with many leaders of the Mujahideen (including OBL), during the war against the USSR. But, that does not help us. Many of them are Taliban, or al Queda. Even if someone looked clean, you could not be sure they are not the dreaded 'double agent'.
Trying to set-up a spy network now, would not only be dangerous, but also doomed to failure. Our best chance for getting good intel, is probably what we are already doing. That is to study an area in depth, with constant satellite surveillance and daily U-2 overflights. You locate some remote areas with caves, to set-up a base camp. Then you airdrop some crack team(s) (Navy SEALS, Marine Force Recon, British SAS), and equipment and establish a base camp, usually only accessible through repelling. They go out at night, and set-up monitoring equipment. A properly set-up AO can watch a very large region, with no one even knowing they are there.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 51:
Excellent point yet through clever marketing by Obama's team, so many Americans now believe that Obama is the antiwar alternative to the overt militarism of McCain. Obama's campaign has done a superb job of presenting Obama as a person of style instead of substance, party over principle. With their love for militarism, their refusal to include single payer in their health carer plans and their rejection of impeaching one of the most corrupt and criminal administrations in this country's history, along with their devotion to Israel at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people, it will be like choosing two sides of the same coin. Since most Americans seem reluctant to engage in critical thinking, third party candidates will, in all likelihood, end up being shut out of the electoral process because of the actions of the media and the American people.
#60-Edwin Hussein the whiner
I thought, apparently erroneously, that when I wrote the United States that it would have been clear to most people that that meant the government instead of the people in that country. Please try to make your point, if you have one, in a more coherent way. Also, I strongly doubt if the rest of the world hates America simply because of Bush; they detest instead those in the U.S. government who invade and occupy other countries needlessly and unjustifiably, whether they might be Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam or McCain for proposing to send more troops to Iraq or Obama to sacrifice more troops in Afghanistan, which would result in the deaths of innocent Afghan civilians.
Help,
My Brain is mush and I don't know what I am doing
General_Rennenkampf @ 39:
constituent @ 37:
afghanistan and u.s. have already agreed to permanent bases………i thought i heard largest u.s. base is in afghanistan can be seen from space…….some factions of their government want the stability and the impact on the economy.
No, there’s no way in Hell you can build a base that big. You can’t even see the Great Wall of China from space, nor even a city the size of New York. Whoever said that was a liar, and ill-informed on how damn far away satellites imaging Earth from space are.
The US won’t create stability, it will only enhance a civil war raging for nearly 30 years now, and Afghanistan may be driven into the arms of the foreign heretics eventually out of desperation (and anger at US Christianizing.)
general i’m looking for that base size reference i may have misundersood or it was entire land staked out as base….airfields
anyways i may agree with you as far as not stabilizing
maybe more about encircling china. the warlords seem to run a large portion of the country…economy is not good except for poppy
Even so, if you can’t see something the size of Shanghai or Tokyo in the daytime from space (and you can’t), seeing one miserable US base in the mountainous region of Central Asia (the steppes are further north and east) is stretching it, well past the point of breaking it and into the point of shattering it.
And if you want to encircle China, Afghanistan’s a helluva poor way to do it, the Afghan-Chinese border is pathetically tiny, and the Chinese could swamp the entire US force with men if they wished to. No, the invasion of Afghanistan is just the War of American Intervention in a war that hasn’t ended after the Russians left.
Gentlemen: You're correct about the Chinese swamping the entire US force with men if they wish to. However, I don't think they have to do any fighting. Back in the 80's when North Vietnam was in a border dispute with China and the two countries engaged in some sort of fighting, my brother made a comment that the Chinese didn't have to fire a shot, they only needed to move their 1 million plus army to the border and told the soldiers to pee on the North Vietnam side of the border. It would certainly swamp the whole country in no time at all.
Mackdaknife @ 62 ,
For the most part I like your postings , howevrer on this one I think your wrong , what if we just supplied aid , ya know like food , medical , clothes , shelter etc. Me I think it is a mind set , who would you trust , someone offering food , medical , shelter , or blazing guns .
Irony is so funny at times , being of the age where life holds little rewards , I would gladly go help rebuild Afghanistan or Iraq , guess who would be beheaded first , me , im atheist .
the General @ 56 ,
Scary is the only word that comes to mind , I would rather go thru an ice age , just dont think we will be around that long .
The part of the surge that worked was the splurge. When the USA paid Sunnis to quit attacking American and coalition forces they responded honorably. The same cannot be said of the mercenary KBR, Blackwater, etc. forces. They did whatever they were inclined to do because it was lawless for them-- there were no legal repercussions for randomly killing, raping, torturing. Who do do you think is attracted to this kind of service? PLEASE, I am not saying everybody who signed up to be a mercenary was/is sociopathic. Certainly, some are/were.
Login or Register to post comments.