Bush Echoes Obama: Afghanistan Is Descending Into Iraq-Like Insurgency

President Bush, during a news conference on Tuesday, compared current-day Afghanistan to the war in Iraq in the height of its insurgency. In the process, he bolstered an argument that -- of all people -- Sen. Barack Obama has stressed on the campaign trail.

"Afghanistan is a tough fight," Bush remarked during a press conference. "It's a tough fight because one, it is a state that has been just ravaged by previous wars and there wasn't a lot of central government outreach to the people. Secondly, there is a tough enemy and they are brutal and they will kill at the drop of a hat in order to affect behavior. It's a little bit reminiscent of what was taking place in Iraq a couple years ago where the enemy knows they can affect the mentality of the American people if they just continue to kill innocent folks. They have no regard for human life, and it really is important we succeed there as well as in Iraq. We do not want the enemy to have safe haven."

[WATCH]

The President's foreign policy synopsis comes in the midst of a heated exchange on the very same topic between Obama and John McCain. Ironically, it seems to be an acknowledgment of one of Obama's chief concerns: mainly, that America's investments in Iraq have distracted the country from the fight in Afghanistan. The Illinois Democrat has, in fact, called for drawing down troops in the former country in order to put them on the front lines of the latter.

"In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated," Obama said in a speech today in Washington D.C. "June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy."

Bush, in his press conference, continued to express confidence in America's capacity to wage war on two fronts. But the acknowledgment that Afghanistan has descended to the depths comparable to those of Iraq in the height of its insurgency is, nevertheless, a frame that fits Obama's foreign policy.

Certainly, it is something that the McCain campaign is aware of. On Tuesday, the Arizona Republican criticized Obama for his approach to the dual wars, saying (in prepared remarks):

"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."

An aide to Obama flatly rejected the idea that the Iraq war was a necessary precondition for understanding how to achieve victory in Afghanistan.

In a response to the Huffington Post's Seth Colter Walls, Obama's traveling press secretary Linda Douglass replied: "We never would have needed to come up with a new strategy for victory if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan."

Update: A reader points out that Obama's campaign strategist, David Axelrod, argued the other day that Bush was coming around to Obama's position on Afghanistan. The Hill's blog "Briefing Room" has the write-up.

Comments

[MyGuyO]

Bush is the most riduculous person, but this is the way of the Republican­s...take, steal anyway you can and take the credit. This is nothing new.

[Truthfighter1]

Duh'...

[guntotinganglion]

"They have no regard for human life"

Over 1.2 million innocent Iraqi's dead, in a war of choice, fought specifically for regime change (which is illegal by many international treaties the US is signatory to), with a secondary goal of plundering a foreign countries natural resources (another international crime)...a­nd this pig has the cajones to say THEY have no regard for human life?????

[DaOne]

I have this feeling that Bush doesn't want McCain to win.

[Krikkit]

Actually, this is a risky move, but it plays into one of the GOP strategies. Right now, one of Obama's greatest strengths is that he is NOT Bush. The Obama campaign is using that by painting McWhatever as Bush II. But you know Rove's favorite strategy was to attack his opponent's strenghts, turning them into weaknesses. By Bush realigning his foreign policy to match Obama, he is undermining this strategy, making it seem like Obama and he have more in common than he and McWhatever. That's the only way to combat the "McCain=Bush" meme, to replace it with Obama=Bush. I hope the voters won't be fooled, but as a group, they don't have such a good track record at resisting these kinds of bait and switch tactics.

[levibatgirl]

I no longer click on 'play' when I see a video of this liar and idiot. Everything about him repulses me.

[Krikkit]

Prime example. See above.

[loax]

Go ahead, McCain. refute what your own party leader says. Just because you have been to many countires, and you were a POW, it does not mean you know how to win a war! Next you will be stealing from Obama's playbook, you old warmongering fool!

[Grunty1]

The Republican strategists know that O'bama is right, so they will try to take steps to remove the issue from him. AKA, follow O'bama's plan.

[DesertLight]

And O's plan is? Enlighten me?

[luckynewman13]

ummmm, how about you read his speech today, that plan seems pretty specific

[VolvoBirkenstock]

The one you were panning on the thread dealing with the topic?

[RatgurlSD]

www.barackobama.com

all the answers you need!

[gditty]

It's the same plan the Bush administration is using on Pakistan & Afghanista­n....

[Krikkit]

For in-depth, visit BarackObama.com. In brief, it's to remove troops from Iraq and send most of them to Afghanistan.

[Bobrobert]

ROFLMAO

McDoodoo and Bu-ll-sh are so stupid.

Stop the lying guys, the truth is you lost in Iraq because there was nothing there to win.

Remember to vote all.

:-)

Keep our troops in your prayers.

[DesertLight]

Boosh echoes O? He is saying what he has always been saying. What a deceiving article?

[VolvoBirkenstock]

Faith heal your computer, holy roller, and read the quote and watch the video.

[DesertLight]

Uh, I did evil grimace.

[RatgurlSD]

Pay no mind to DesrtLight. He/she's one of them there trolls.

[Researchguy66]

O'bam*a is change Iran can believe in!

[JonG345]

This just adds to my new over-arching theory about this general election campaign. I'll explain simply:

The arguments against Barack Obama are usually based on lies and misconception - a shading of the truth if you will. The arguments FOR (not against) electing John McCain are the same, based on covering facts that most Americans won't like, such as his opinions on abortion, the economy, and the truth about "victory" in Iraq.

Therefore, I applaud those that make us think, as was done by the New Yorker cover artist, and examine the facts, because the more you know about Barack Obama, the more you will like him. Counter to that, the more you know about John McCain, the less you will approve of him. It is our job as responsible citizens to examine the facts and peel away misconceptions.

[cynicism101]

I believe that applies to you, yes. Me, no.

The article in the New Yorker "sells issues" nothing more ... but feel free to assign virtue to the idea as you see fit.

My objection to the Senator for IL has nothing to do with lies or misconceptions, unless you mean the ones he tells on his own. Such as being for financing until, as he phrased it "it became politically unpopular".

For railing against the current FISA bill, right up until the time he actually voted for it.

For bashing the current policy on Iran - about imposing restrictions against a meeting, before he stated he wanted restrictions ... ie, the current policy.

His views on abortion. All I know is from his record in IL - where he neither voted for, nor against partial birth abortion. Instead, he chose the spineless option of "present"

I could go on with several of his own "misconceptions" but I think I've peeled away enough to make my point.

[Speakchic]

Seems like on issues of foreign affairs Bush is picking up and benefiting from alot that Obama has had to say and offers. What a coincidence!

Obama '08!

[shel3364]

"When the Iraqi government stands up, we'll stand down."

Sounds like they're standing up, to me.

[Grunty1]

No, they are standing up to B'ush!

[Krikkit]

Actually, as from the beginning of the insurrgence, it is al-Sadr who is standing up. He was responsible for most of the insurgency and is responsible for the cease-fire; he is responsible for pressuring the Maliki government into insisting that we do not plan on permanently-manned bases by announcing that he's reorganized the Mahdi army into units specifically designed to kill US soldiers and he will order them to begin their mission if we don't get the heck out of there.

You really ought to walk away from teh MSM. Their reporting is half-arsed at best. If Bush pressures the Maliki government into accepting an open-ended "security agreement" that allows our troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely, you're going to see a bloodbath much worse than before the so-called surge.

[rollingdivision]

"An aide to Obama flatly rejected the idea that the Iraq war was a necessary precondition for understanding how to achieve victory in Afghanista­n." It's is a fools errand to attempt to achieve victory in Afghanistan. If Obama and now Bush think otherwise they are both wrong. There will be no victory in Afghanistan as in the sense of having a central national government controlling the country. Afghanistan has never had any controlling central government at best it has had national governments with control over more than half of the country and tacit working relationships with the tribal leaders in the outlying areas. There will not a victory in Afghanistan in any conventional sense. What we can hope for is to prevent the Taliban, their supporters or someone equally bad from gaining control of the country and government turning the country into a safe haven for terrorist staging again. The military strategy should be having just enough military in Afghanistan to do this and no more.

It's is a fools errand to attempt to do anything else. Fools come from all political persuasions so now the progressives are now for victory in Afghanistan. When Afghanistan is where all their arguments about why we couldn't win in Iraq actually apply. And now we are a developing a political consensus on victory in Afghanistan, sad so many are wrong.

[Krikkit]

This argument about winning and losing is a red herring. Winning all depends on the definition, if you think about it. If by winning, we mean routing the Taliban out of the border region of Afghanistan, then that's doable. If by winning you mean going in there and remaking Afghanistan in our image, then that is a fools errand.

Besides, it's a job we have to do if we want to keep the Taliban from taking over Pakistan and their nukes. If we walk away from this one, you won't like the outcome a decade from now, guaranteed.

[rollingdivision]

Obama is the one talking about "achieve victory in Afghanistan". I think we are in general agreement, the goal is to keep the Taliban or people like them from gaining control over Afghanistan. Pakistan, is a much different issue, but he was talking about Afghanistan.

[zull2]

Hilarious! Bush forgot to include McCain and his advisers on his talking points email! They've been criticizing that same plan for the last 2 days!

[Polyjunkie]

Sam,

I really appreciated reading your post and sincerely hope that it will be a narrative that will be picked up and highlighted more by the MSM.

At every juncture senator Obama has demonstrated superior judgment and vision in terms of foreign policy. From his stated objection (accurately forecasting the challenges and risks) to the invasion of Iraq, spelling out the need to be more proactive in dealing with Pakistan and pursuit of Osama Bin Ladin and his cronies, highlighting the need to give more focus/troops to the conflict in Afghanistan, as well as describing the increase in influence Iran had gained from the Iraq invasion and the need to pursue more aggressive and direct diplomacy with the Iranian leadership.

Yet, the commonly accepted wisdom is that Senator McCain has the stronger foreign policy experience, Amazing??!!