Get Real

By Lawrence J. Korb, Laura Conley

New proposals from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to increase U.S. troop commitments and development assistance to Afghanistan are long overdue and yet contradicted by his policy prescriptions for U.S. forces in Iraq. Our battle-weary soldiers in Iraq cannot leave without a plan for a significant redeployment, and they cannot redeploy from there to Afghanistan or elsewhere in significant numbers without placing even further strains on our already overstretched ground forces.

Sen. McCain seems unaware or unfamiliar with these current facts on the ground. But Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, certainly isn't. He noted in early July that although he would like to direct additional troops to Afghanistan, "those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq allows us to do so."

Sen. McCain is to be commended for his desire to increase security in Afghanistan, but U.S. progress there would have been better served by an earlier and stronger commitment from him and other conservatives. Instead, they all but abandoned the fight against Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and his Taliban allies in favor of invading Iraq. Because U.S. military resources and American political and public attention shifted to Iraq, the security challenges in Afghanistan multiplied. Suicide bombings in the country increased from 21 in 2005 to 139 in 2006, and 160 in 2007 -- the deadliest year for U.S. forces in the country since the invasion.

The recent attack on an American outpost, which claimed the lives of nine U.S. soldiers in northeastern Afghanistan, underscores the deteriorating security situation in the country, and the necessity of directing more resources to the conflict. The incident, the deadliest attack on U.S. troops in Afghanistan in three years, is sure to make this month more deadly for U.S. troops in Afghanistan than Iraq for the third month in a row.

The three additional brigades that Sen. McCain proposes to deploy to Afghanistan have long been needed there to pursue this growing insurgency. As he recognizes in his proposals, U.S. and NATO forces currently deployed to Afghanistan are insufficient to meet the demands of the conflict. But that's been a fact for some time now.

U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill called for three additional brigades to be sent to Afghanistan during his tenure from February 2007 to June 2008 as the head of the International Security Assistance Force, and his successor, General David McKiernan, expressed a need for additional military resources as recently as June 2008.

The lack of adequate military forces in a region home to Al Qaeda Central poses a direct security threat to the United States and its allies. The border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan provided the sanctuary in which the attacks of September 11 were planned and directed, and now serves as a base from which the Taliban and other insurgents receive financing and training alongside members of Al Qaeda.

The most serious weakness of Sen. McCain's proposed strategy, however, is its feasibility, rather than its timing. He insists upon a large, open-ended U.S. military presence in Iraq, which calls into question his ability to deliver reinforcements to Afghanistan.

The Bush administration's surge strategy in Iraq -- a policy repeatedly lauded by McCain -- is directly responsible for the U.S. military's diminished ability to effectively counter the insurgency in Afghanistan. Although the combat brigades that constituted the surge have already withdrawn from Iraq, there are still 140,000 troops in the country, 8,000 more than before the surge. The deployment of these personnel, combined with the already high troop levels in Iraq, places unacceptable restrictions on the ability of U.S. commanders to fight terrorism and insurgency elsewhere.

Sen. McCain's policy does not account for the strain placed on U.S. forces due to repeated deployments. Of the nearly 1.7 million U.S. soldiers who have served in Afghanistan or Iraq, almost 600,000 have been deployed more than once. As the large U.S. presence in Iraq continues to require repeated deployments, often with insufficient time between tours of duty, the ability of the military to provide significant numbers of combat-ready forces for Afghanistan is diminished.

Increasing security in Afghanistan must be the primary, though not sole priority of the United States. U.S. policy in Afghanistan can and must be revitalized with a commitment to building Afghan government capacity, reining in corruption, increasing reconstruction efforts, removing the terrorist safe haven in Pakistan, and reducing the production of opium.

At our sister affiliate, the Center for American Progress, we have been advocating for a renewed focus on Afghanistan since the release of the Center's "Strategic Redeployment" plan in 2005. The Center's "Strategic Reset" report, released in June 2007, reiterated the need to develop a comprehensive U.S. strategy for the Middle East, including a troop increase in Afghanistan. In November 2007, the Center released "The Forgotten Front," which provided a detailed plan for immediate and sustained action to combat the growing Afghan insurgency, including a significant increase in the number of American troops.

Unfortunately, the next president will be unable to move forward with these priorities without a significant redeployment of American forces from Iraq, a policy McCain has thus far been unwilling to consider.

Lawrence J. Korb is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Laura Conley is a Special Assistant at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Comments

[jcorrington]

I'm just not so sure tranferring a bigger war to Afgan is such a good idea. It just looks like another chaotic mess to me. Even the Russians gave up on that idea. We should think long and hard about this..

[djarvis]

The thing is, way back early in the primaries Barack Obama was already calling for a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq and a redeployment of troops to Afghanistan. Now, a year later, John McCain has realized the need for more troops in Afghanistan. The problem is, he is still unwilling to accept a troop withdrawal from Iraq, which is necessary for us to have enough troops available to go to Afghanistan. He has suggested that we get some troops from NATO to help in the effort. However, NATO is unlikely to go along with us for this war, since we screwed things up so bad with our invasion of Iraq.

Again, Obama was right early on, while McCain and Bush seem to come around to the same conclusions too late. Just like they are now wanting to do diplomacy with Iran when a few months ago they called this appeasement.

[nk007]

The sad and tragic thing is Sen. McCain is still portrayed as strong on defense and more trustworthy as commander in chief. It almost appears that for most in the MSM, McCain's war hero status overrides everything. His policies on the illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan have absolutely no coherence. But because he is a war hero (simply for enduring as a prisoner of war) he is given a pass. As for Obama, any minor errors, or even those non-errors manufactured by the press, are pounced on by the press. In addition, you have the Hillraisers who make the Republicans look Sunday school teachers. Their venomous hatred of Obama means that he is attacked on everything. Of course their favorite line of attack is their claim that Obama is the most unqualified person to be the nominee of the party. Goes to show you that even the people who claim to be so sophisticated have absolutely no knowledge of history. Some of our greatest presidents-notably Abraham Lincoln- had less or as much experience as Obama. Likewise, some of the most experienced ( i.e. those who have spent long years in office) turned out to be the most abysmal presidents: e.g. James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover. So, in spite of the fact that Obama has demonstrated more foresight and wisdom on both Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain is still viewed as better than Obama to be Commander in Chief.

[jbatch]

You might also note that Iraq had no WMDs; that Bush knew it but lied; that they had no link with alQaeda (again, bush et. al. knew this and lied); and that the attack was unwarranted, unjustified and illegal.

Or that Gitmo and Abu Grahib and other attrocities authoriazed by the White House functioned as the greatest recruiting bonanza bin Laden could ever have hoped for.

Or that preemptively yielding our basic rights was handing a success to al Qaeda. Indeed that's what terrorists most arently desire - a change from within fueled by fear becasue they anot have the military strength to do it any other way. Bush gave them exactly what they wanted.

And McCain backed him every step of the way. Tactical blunders in an unecessary war? Sure. But the real tragedy -- and crime -- was strategic and moral blunders in an unecessary war that made us weaker and more vulnerable.

[Binx101]

Seriously, commended ??? Why do we have to use this conciliatory language? Don't get me wrong - I know what you meant but this man McCain is the Republican Party stooge - and I say that with all due respect. He's the stooge. It could have been Mike Huckabee he has the same unending delusion that he's born to be president - but McCain actually has some money behind him and the President that pummeled him wanted a chance to prop him up.

So this nice language about him maneuvering politically is getting me annoyed.

John McCain is worse than a consummate politician - he's a poser. He's not very bright. Granted, next to Bush, Larry the cable guy appears to be insightful - but that's not a standard.

McCain is truly a liar. He will say anything at anytime if he feels it will help him get elected.
McCain is not a scholar. He was bottom of his class all his life.
McCain is not a Maverick. He wanted that nick-name to stick but now it's not helpful.
McCain is not a military expert. He knew he wasn't going to reach Flag rank despite his lineage.
McCain is not a good-guy. He's for hire.

McCain is dumb. He proves it with regularity.

Binx101
The Almost Daily Binx
http://binx101.wordpress.com

[4President]

Hypothetically speaking, If I were the parent of a soldier in Afghanistan and learned that the military's top brass felt more troops were necessary in a region my child was serving, but the president due to whatever reason said additional troops were unavailable. What would my recourse be? Is there a legality issue here?