July 15, 2008
McCain Calls For Troop Increase In Afghanistan
Speaking a few moments ago in Albuquerque, NM, John McCain issued a call to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, noting that the situation in Iraq is much improved.
NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy, who has been traveling with the McCain campaign, notes that the candidate has until today danced around questions about increasing the troop commitment in Afghanistan. During yesterday's press avail, McCain stepped up to the line, but backed off: "I think we need to do whatever is necessary, and that could entail more troops. We need to do a lot of things in Afghanistan. A lot of this has to do with Pakistan and the safe haven areas that I have visited in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. But the major point here is that Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong. He said that the surge couldn't succeed. He said he opposed the increase in troops. The surge has succeeded. We were losing when we put the 30,000 additional troops in with a new strategy. He said it would fail and he still refuses to acknowledge that it is succeeding."
McCain today introduced his "Comprehensive Strategy for Victory in Afghanistan," which includes sending more troops - at least three additional brigades - and creating an Afghanistan Czar to oversee all operations there.
Aigner-Treworgy writes: This isn't a shift in position, but it is a change from the way he has been speaking about the situation in Afghanistan, which usually included a call for increased NATO support and the need for political accords with Pakistan.
McCain's full speech is available after the jump.
I'm here today to discuss with you several issues that worry you and most Americans, our slumping economy, job loss, rising gas and food prices, and what we need to do to get our economy growing again, create jobs and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. But there is another urgent issue I want to address before I take your questions, which I know concerns you because brave Americans are risking their lives right now to deal with it.
Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy -- a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.
Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America's enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy.
Although the situation in Iraq is much improved, another test awaits whoever wins this election: the war in Afghanistan. The status quo is not acceptable. Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive. From the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan.
Senator Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge -- which Senator Obama opposed -- that we will win in Afghanistan. With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory.
That strategy will have several components. Our 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. But sending more forces, by itself, is not enough to prevail. In the 18 months that Senator Obama has been campaigning for the presidency, the number of NATO forces in Afghanistan has already almost doubled -- from 33,000 in January 2007 to about 53,000 today. Yet security has still deteriorated. What we need in Afghanistan is exactly what Gen. Petraeus brought to Iraq: a nationwide civil-military campaign plan that is focused on providing security for the population. Today no such integrated plan exists. When I am commander-in-chief, it will.
There are, of course, many differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, which any plan must account for. But, as in Iraq, the center of gravity is the security of the population. The good news is that our soldiers have begun to apply the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan -- especially in eastern Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are concentrated. These efforts, however, are too piecemeal; the work of innovative local commanders, rather than a strategy for the entire country. In particular, the U.S. needs to reengage deeper in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban heartland.
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.
A successful counterinsurgency requires more than military force. It requires all instruments of our national power, and that military and civilian leaders work together, at all levels, under a joint plan. Too often in Afghanistan this is not happening. And we need to build the same kind of civil-military partnership that Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker have forged in Iraq, supported by the best talent in the U.S. government and the resources necessary to prevail. Unity of command is also a principle I will bring to Washington. Too often, even as American soldiers and diplomats cooperate in the field, their superiors back home have been squabbling. Last year, the Bush administration appointed a war czar, responsible for both Iraq and Afghanistan. This was a step in the right direction. But Afghanistan is sufficiently important that a separate Afghanistan Czar is needed. I will appoint a highly-respected national security lea der, based in the White House and reporting directly to the President, whose sole mission will be to ensure we bring the war in Afghanistan to a successful end.
Everyone knows the United States increased the number of its soldiers in Iraq last year. What's less well known is that the Iraqis surged with us, adding over 100,000 security forces to their ranks. It's time for the Afghans to do the same. The Afghan army is already a great success story: a multiethnic, battle-tested fighting force. The problem is, it's too small, with a projected strength of only 80,000 troops. For years, the Afghans have been telling us they need a bigger army, and they are right. We need to at least double the size of the Afghan army to 160,000 troops. The costs of this increase, however, should not be borne by American taxpayers alone. Insecurity in Afghanistan is the world's problem, and the world should share the costs. We must work with our allies to establish an international trust fund to provide long-term financing for the Afghan army.
We also need to increase our non-military assistance to the Afghan government, with a multi-front plan for strengthening its institutions, the rule of law, and the economy in order to provide a sustainable alternative to the drug trade. Getting control of narcotics trafficking is central to our efforts in Afghanistan. Alternative crops must be able to get to market and traffickers must be arrested and prosecuted by enhanced Special Courts. We should agree on specific governance and development benchmarks with the Afghan government, then work with them closely to ensure they are met.
Just as we have worked over the past 18 months to stabilize Iraq by bringing together its neighbors, this kind of diplomacy is just as important for Afghanistan. The violence there has many causes, but chief among them is the fact that Afghanistan is treated by some regional powers a chessboard on which to pursue their own ambitions. I will appoint a special presidential envoy to address disputes between Afghanistan and its neighbors. Our goal must be to turn Afghanistan from a theater for regional rivalries into a commons for regional cooperation.
A special focus of our regional strategy must be Pakistan, where terrorists today enjoy sanctuary. This must end. We must strengthen local tribes in the border areas who are willing to fight the foreign terrorists there -- the strategy used successfully in Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq. We must convince Pakistanis that this is their war as much as it is ours. And we must empower the new civilian government of Pakistan to defeat radicalism with greater support for development, health, and education. Senator Obama has spoken in public about taking unilateral military action in Pakistan. In trying to sound tough, he has made it harder for the people whose support we most need to provide it. I will not bluster, and I will not make idle threats. But understand this: when I am commander -in-chief, there will be nowhere the terrorists can run, and nowhere they can hide.
In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander-in-chief doesn't get a learning curve. If I have that privilege, I will bring to the job many years of military and political experience; experience that gave me the judgment necessary to make the right call in Iraq a year and half ago. I supported the surge because I believed it was our only realistic chance to reverse the disaster our previous strategy had caused, and the right thing to do for our country. And although events have proven me right, my position wasn't popular at the time, and I risked my own political ambitions when I took it. When I tell you, I will put our country's interests -- your interests -- before party; before any special interest; before my own interests, every hour of every day I'm in office, you can believe me. Because for my entire adult life, in war and peace, nothing has ever been more important to me than the se curity and well-being of the country I love. Thank you.
Posted at 12:20 PM
Comments
Okay, so NO MENTION of a troop draw-down in Iraq?
Surge surge surge surge surge. BUT NO MENTION OF TROOP DRAWDOWN IN IRAQ!!!! ARGH!
McSame: "Senator Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq."
LOSING in Iraq. As if Barack wants the USA to LOSE in Iraq. As if IRAQ is ALL BARACK'S FAULT. This is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
We now understand, clearly. Americans are smart people.... That despite your initial rhetoric about a "fair" campaign, you have resorted to NEOCONSERVATIVE STYLE fear-mongering.
We get it. Thanks.
Revolting. Pitiful. We need a 180-degree reversal from this disgusting political parlor game by the GOP and a focus on bringing the troops home from IRAQ and settling AFGHANISTAN. And jeez, GETTING OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!
Unbelievable, the rhetoric from John McCain. Unfrigginbelievable.
Ethan | 07.15.08 12:54 PM
 |
Just look at this:
www.wftv.com/news/16879991/detail.html
www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/16879916/detail.html
A billboard in FL:
"has a picture of the burning World Trade Center and the message, "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat."
Please America. Please Republicans. No more. Honestly.
Ethan | 07.15.08 01:10 PM
|
Wait a minute here.
Didn't Obama say this already and mac pooh poohed it?
flip flop flip flop........
mac=mackeral
jc | 07.15.08 02:22 PM
|
Any idea where we'll get these troops? I know I am not going?
Any idea how we'll pay for this? I know I am tapped out.
War! War! War! That's all the Repugantcans want.
Royal King | 07.15.08 02:55 PM
|
Here is Barack Obama's summation of the big strategic picture in late 2001, and the massive lost opportunity of the Bush/McCain strategy:
"Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.
* We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.
* We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.
* We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.
* We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.
* We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.
* We could have secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.
* We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.
* We could have done that.
Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."
Here are Obama's topline priorities:
-- ending the war in Iraq responsibly;
-- finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban;
-- securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states;
-- achieving true energy security; and
-- rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Ron | 07.15.08 03:01 PM
|
Yes JC. Bigtime flip-flop on Afghanistan.
From the BRILLIANT mind of NBC/National Journal:
"""Aigner-Treworgy writes: This isn't a shift in position, but it is a change from the way he has been speaking"""
Not a shift in position, just a change in speaking.
Uh huh right.
This from someone in THE PRESS.
Remember that? The Press?
If McCain wins, it is basically confirmation that we are a fascist state controlled by corporations.
Anyone else following the insane revelations that the Chief Washington Correspondent of the Associated Press wrote Karl Rove an email saying to "Keep up the fight"? This during the 2004 Presidential race no less.
Folks, we have been hoodwinked. We have completely lost our freedom of the press. It has been corporatized and politicized beyond recognition.
We are in deep deep trouble if this continues.
As I've said, we simply CANNOT afford to elect ANYONE from the GOP into high office. Period. Doesn't matter who they are, what they say, what you read in the news, or who they are running against. We simply CANNOT elect a Republican if we want to maintain a democratic republic form of government. It has gotten that bad.
It just disgusts me to no end what has happened to our country. Shameful. Horrendous. The voters on the Right need to come to grips that the political party that they have elected has perpetrated the biggest attack on America and our way of life in our entire history. It may be that voters on the Right were LIED to or deceived, but either way, my friends on the Right need to come to this realization ASAP. The biggest attack on our way of life and on our form of government in our country's history.
Ethan | 07.15.08 03:06 PM
|
McCain says he supported the surge because he believed it was "our only realistic chance to reverse the disaster our previous strategy had caused" while failing to acknowledge that he was a big-time cheerleader for that disasterous strategy. I hope someone calls him on his cynical and convenient historical revisionism.
R. Asher | 07.15.08 04:44 PM
|
I'm sorry - this is complete bullcrap. McCain has repeatedly said that troop numbers in Afghanistan is not the problem. At times, when he has mentioned increased troop levels, it has always been in the context of convincing our NATO allies to provide more troops. Now he says that we need more U.S. troops there, and it isn't a shift in position????
I call bullcrap. Don't get me wrong, I want both nominees to "shift positions" on Iraq/Afghanistan as the situations there change. But it beyond believable that when McCain "shifts positions" the media bends over backwards to give him a pass, but when Obama even shifts emphasis on long-held positions, he is branded as a "flip flopper."
Oh, that's right, as John Marhsall has noted, if it doesn't fit the narrative, it didn't happen.
Alice | 07.15.08 06:12 PM
|
Why is Obama stating a strategy for Iraq before his trip to the area, and before he consults with the commanders on the ground? Obama says we should shift our attention to Afghanistan, but why hasn't he even voted on the committee for Afghanistan, the committee which he supposedly chaired for the past year? It sounds to me like Obama is simply playing politics with his statements, rather than offering a policy which is based on reality ... and a policy which would actually work. Let's keep America safe and secure, by electing Senator John McCain in November.
Howard | 07.15.08 07:37 PM
|
Hey Howard. Ya mean like he's kept 4,120 American GIs safe in Iraq? They are ALL DEAD. 4,120 American GIs. DEAD.
If we left Iraq now, by the time we were out in 16 months we will have been there for 7 YEARS. 7 YEARS. 7 YEARS.
Keep us safe. Let's talk about who is PLAYING POLITICS, Howard. Let's have a real long talk about who is playing politics.
You and George W. Bush and John McCain OWE IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to have a REAL LONG TALK about who is playing politics in this country, Howard.
Ethan | 07.15.08 10:10 PM
|
Good God man, are you seriously nuts? Afghanistan is a land locked country, with mountainous terrain, bordered by nations hostile to the US. You can't get supplies there by ship. There is a logistical problem in winning this war my friend. And who will pay for it? Are you going to shell out at extra 10% of your income and lose your job so that McCain can keep the US troops in Afghanistan. If you want to win afghanistan there would have to be targetted cluster bombing campaigns to soften both sides of the Afghan / Pakistan border. Then there would have to be construction of robotic intelligence outposts that monitor insurgent movement. Even if you did that you won't solve the problem of poverty and economic development in the country without at least 10-20 years of intensive educational development, business development, infrastructure, and recruiting a civilian militia in every town and village, trained to fight against the taleban - something like Israel has. All of this is going to require serious dollars and cents because that country only grows opium they don't have anything that can finance this. Do you really have the stomach for what you propose?
The reason it's difficult to win Afghanistan is taht they ahve no resources. That means they are a country that will need to have people who are highly trained like Japan in order to be able achieve any competitive advantage or make economic progress.
John Peterson | 07.16.08 12:37 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
