Welcome to the party, Senator McCain.
Five years ago, on the April 10, 2003 Hannity and Colmes, John McCain said, "Nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America and nobody is running terrorist training camps to orchestrate attacks on the United States of America." And, for the next five years, those "nobodies" made significant gains in Afghanistan, as McCain and President Bush focused on Iraq.
Today, apparently, Afghanistan is a threat and John McCain is just the man who knows how to "win wars," as he said in response to Senator Obama's speech on our global commitments. Actually, this is more like Senator McCain recognizing that Senator Obama, with his long-standing view that we needed to focus on Afghanistan, is about to look prescient about Afghanistan, and a lot tougher on the terrorists than John McCain. So, as Obama called for an increase in the number of troops in Afghanistan, McCain teased that this week, he'll call for a "surge" there.
One problem: He can't do it.
Senator Obama's plan is eminently workable, as he will begin the redeployment of troops from Iraq and up the numbers in Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen said as much, when he said that he, too, would like to send more troops to Afghanistan, but couldn't do so until we found a way to get troops home from Iraq.
Senator McCain, however, hits a pretty big snag.
If he's serious about an indefinite commitment to Iraq, with no timetable for when they come home, he doesn't have the troops to make any meaningful "surge" in Afghanistan. It's not as simple as saying he'll just take the surge brigades from Iraq and ship them directly to Afghanistan. Not if he also wants to boost the number of active duty troops on the homefront, as he has said he will do as President, and keep force levels up in Iraq as he has indicated he will do. Because troops need a certain time at home between deployments, there are only so many troops in our armed forces, and McCain just won't have what he needs to do what he says he'll do.
Unless....
He can get the troops he needs if he does a complete flip flop on Iraq and announces that he will back the Obama plan, bringing troops home from Iraq at a steady pace, which would allow rested troops to deploy to Afghanistan, soon to be joined by troops home from Iraq who had time to rest.
Or, he can get the troops he needs if he implements a draft. That would boost the number of troops training and available here on the homefront, allowing him to send more readied troops to Afghanistan, and keep up his commitment to Iraq.
I should also note here that McCain won't be able to count on NATO to meet and expand its commitment to Afghanistan, either, because his stance on Iraq is the same as President Bush's, and will be met with the same result. Namely, that various Presidents and Prime Ministers will find it politically impossible to send more troops to Afghanistan. So forget NATO providing the troops.
If he knows how to win wars, as he says, then Senator McCain also must know how to do simple math. If he is serious about doing what he says he's going to do in Afghanistan, then he should explain to the American people that it will mean he has abandoned his stubborn position on Iraq, or he will institute the draft.
And, if he won't give America some straight talk on that, maybe, for once, the media will dare to ask Senator McCain a tough question or two.
UPDATE: Geesh, that was fast. The Washington Post reports that Senator McCain already has backtracked:
In an interview with reporters aboard his campaign bus, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) modified his assertion today that the U.S. could send three additional brigades to Afghanistan by drawing on troops that were leaving Iraq.The presumptive GOP nominee, who made his initial remarks in a speech before an Albuquerque audience, told reporters just minutes after the event that he might call on NATO to supply part of the additional troops he hopes to send to the region.
"We need to work that out, we need to have greater participation from our NATO allies, and we need a lot more help from our NATO allies," the senator said. "We need to -- I laid it out in my speech, we need to have strategy, not just an injection of troops. I think that's true of all counterinsurgencies."
As I wrote above, I don't know why Senator McCain believes that Europe would rush to boost their numbers in Afghanistan when the unpopularity of the Bush-McCain endless war in Iraq has only led them to have to remove their troops. That's not going to change. So it only took a few minutes for the McCain plan for Afghanistan to completely unravel.
Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz
At the time I served there was a draft and the country lived through it. It gave most every one a chance to know what a honor it is to serve your country.
Or, does none of that count?
Semper fi
McCain himself has stated we don't have a big enough army and that's why he was against the new GI Bill (he was afraid it would hurt retention).
Read the facts yourself:
http://www.stopthinkvote.com/facts/militaryfacts.html
Why hasn't the media called out John McCain over his everday flip-flopping on foreign policy and a list of other things rather than parsing every noun, verb and syllable that Obama says?
Doing everything they can to co-opt ALL national security issues, mc-same and the preznutz repeatedly say that Senator Obama doesn't understand foreign affairs yet somehow amazingly slide towards his suggested policies daily on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to now even meeting with Iran diplomatically.
The correct phrase might be, "Talking out of both sides of their mouths", or perhaps better yet
...just "Talkin' out their a$$".
Makes perfect scene if your totally out of your mind!
The reporters that ask these questions for the MSM, and then don't get their story run, must be quite frustrated.
VETS prospective.
I can't thank you for all that you and yours do, day in and day out, for our military, veterans, and their families!
Semper Fidelis
to my kids
to see if he can get us to commit more of our (CDN) troops to the Afghan effort. He may
have been given some promises by the Harper gang, but in reality, the majority of the
population here is really starting to have buyers regret of having allowed our NATO
commitments to get to where they are now, let alone dig in any further.. Yep, I would
expect a draft of some sort to have to come back to find the troops that will be needed
to fight two (and with a McCain presidency) maybe three wars at once.. In the worst
case that he were to start up a war in Iran, well, Iraq and Afghanistan will be the least
of our worries...
$.002 (well, maybe $.005, US buck isn't worth so much here these days...)
d.
I spent most of my life, 45+ years in the US, and it's a great country. But
not if you get seriously ill as I did, where Canada welcomed me back with
full medical coverage with no questions asked, other than "where does it
hurt?". You don't realize how hard of a right turn the US has taken until
you come here and decompress from the 9/11/Bush inspired mania.
Sure, it's not perfect, no country is, and we have our lunatic's as well.
Well, about now some stooge is going to come along and call me
some kinda "commie"...
$.005
d.
One thing I can not understand is how do you people swim in them damn cold lakes that water must be just above freezing.
One nation doesn't attack us -- we throw our entire economy at a war there.
Another nation harbors the leadership of the attackers of 9/11 (whom our leader vowed to track down and kill) -- yet, we insist that nation plead its case in front of the rest of the world, as if not our major conern.
So far out on the Bush Doctrine limb, you'll get vertigo if you look down.
Don't confuse Senator McCain with facts!
Under this law, every male OR female(!) from age 18 to 42(!) could be conscripted into "national service," whatever that means ... and "whatever that means" is basically, "whatever the President says to do."
Trouble is, Jon, I believe that this sort of policy and strategy ... though launched in the name of and with the justification of "homeland security" and "national defense" ... actually works dead-AGAINST such objectives. As "Ike" Eisenhower warned, a fixation on war is a hugely-profitable thing, but it comes to dominate all other thinking. To a war-baron, "this is an attractive solution to our 'personnel problem.' " But war-barons should not be running our country.
It (HR393) refers to service in either active military combat
service or civilian service for a period of two years. I checked
with my Representative who is on the committee, and this is
still active but also still in committee. It would likely not make
a big difference in military service when people are given the
option of combat service. Guess it would boil down to the
incentives offered. I know a lot of people in my family would be
affected.