GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Per McClatchy:
Obama Friday called for beefing up the 71,000-strong U.S. and NATO contingents by at least two U.S. brigades, or roughly 7,500 troops, and pressing NATO allies to send more soldiers, as well.
McCain, who’d opposed more forces, responded by saying that he’d send the three brigades U.S. commanders are requesting. Bush agreed that more forces should go, but it’s unclear if he’ll send them before his term ends in January.
More foreign troops, however, would do little than turn more war-weary Afghans against U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai if they aren’t part of a broader and more effective counter-insurgency strategy, some experts and U.S. officials warned.
What’s the solution, according to military commanders and Afghanistan experts?
“There is not one strategy with one person in charge,” complained a U.S. defense official who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. “If we had asked the Taliban to draw an organizational chart for allied forces in Afghanistan, they would have drawn this one.”
A more coherent approach, they said, would streamline the U.S. and NATO chains of command, end restrictions that some allies place on their soldiers and use force far more judiciously to reduce civilian casualties.
This all sounded suspiciously familiar, and what do you know…
One of the reasons there is no comprehensive campaign plan for Afghanistan is because we have violated one of the cardinal rules of any military operation: unity of command. Today there are no less than three different American military combatant commands operating in Afghanistan, as well as NATO, some of whose members have national restrictions on where their troops can go and what they can do. This is no way to run a war. The top commander in Afghanistan needs to be just that: the supreme commander of all coalition forces. As commander-in-chief, I will work with our allies to ensure unity of command.
John S. McCain, July 15, 2008
I question the timing. John McCain came up with this plan a full 11 days before McClatchy’s experts created it? It’s almost as if McCain’s foreign policy prescriptions aren’t made up on the spot (like a Messiah we all know and love) and are, you know, based on actual realities on the ground. Is it possible that McCain “opposed” adding more troops to Afghanistan in the past because we couldn’t spare them from Iraq? And could it be that Obama’s “add more troops” posture in Afghanistan, rather then being the height of military seriousness, is designed to distract us from his oh-so spectacular failure on the other surge? Of course, McClatchy makes no mention of any of this. Obama has a plan, McCain has a plan. They were both wrong at certain points. Either Or I guess. Or something.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Matt, I’ve got to thank you for bringing this up. Most people are not aware of how fragmented our effort in Afghanistan is.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Matt,
It would be certainly nice is alies, other than the US, UK and Canada did some fighting in Afghanistan.
I honestly believe McCain’s current position is correct. We need our ally’s to fight and we must adopt the surge plan in Kabul. Training the Afghan forces and providing the rural farmers with an alternative to poppy crops is how we win this war.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I saw that piece on McClatchy too. It does seems to dovetail nicely with Obama’s attempt to change the conversation, keep with his ongoing “draw down in Iraq” policy, (regardless of conditions, which was his prior position)and make him look hawkish with regard to Afghanistan.
In any case, we should be refocusing our efforts in Afghanistan and McCain, it would seem to me, has identified some serious “chain of command” issues.
Here’s Michael Yon’s take on Afghanisitan two weeks ago after having, for the most part, declared the Iraq War over and won by the US.
—
“I wish I could say the same for Afghanistan. But that war we clearly are losing: I am preparing to go there and see the situation for myself. My friends and contacts who have a good understanding of Afghanistan are, to a man, pessimistic about the current situation. Interestingly, however, every one of them believes that Afghanistan can be turned into a success. They all say we need to change our approach, but in the long-term Afghanistan can stand on its own. The sources range from four-stars to civilians from the United States, Great Britain and other places. A couple years ago, some of these sources believed that defeat was imminent in Iraq. They were nearly right about Iraq, although some of them knew far less about Iraq than they do about Afghanistan. But it’s clear that hard days are ahead in Afghanistan. We just lost nine of our soldiers in a single firefight, where the enemy entered a base and nearly overran it.”
July 27th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Obama says conditions to dictate final Iraq force