Tonight's Debate: What Vets Are Looking For

When Senators Barack Obama and John McCain debate Foreign Policy tonight, veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be looking for answers on five key points, and will heavily judge the debate on those points.

1) Will the candidates (and the moderator) note the difference between "tactical" success of the surge, versus the overall strategic goal of the surge, and whether that was a success?

There has been a lot of talk about the "success" of the surge, from both John McCain and Barack Obama. For those of us who served, this talk leaves out a very key, military point. In any military operation, there is tactical success, and then there is strategic success. To the degree that the surge has been a success, it has been tactical.

Our troops have performed incredibly - taking control of any area they are ordered to take control of, and have helped tamp down violence in those areas (combined with other factors like the Sunni Awakening against al Qaeda in Iraq). However, the strategic goal of the surge, as stated by President Bush, was to bring about political reconciliation in Iraq. At this point, that goal is far from being achieved, as detailed in this report.

It is simply wrong to say that the surge has been an overall success - both tactical and strategic. Will the participants in the debate give America some "straight talk" about the surge?

2) Will the candidates be challenged on the deteriorating situation with Pakistan? Will Obama hold to his position that we must act to strike terrorists officially inside Pakistan's borders, and will McCain hold to his view that Obama is wrong to strike in the ungoverned parts of Pakistan without the expressed consent from Islamabad?

By all measures, the security situation in Afghanistan is now a crisis, with an enemy there that has gained strength and confidence, as our troops are committed to the war in Iraq. Terrorists are even committing acts of violence in Kabul, which to this point had been relatively secure.

A key problem is that terrorists have found safe haven in the ungoverned region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the United States has tried to chase down these terrorists, into what is technically Pakistan, they have faced fire from our supposed ally.

During the primaries, Senator Obama made clear that if the United States had actionable intelligence that al Qaeda leaders were in Pakistan's borders, and Islamabad was unwilling or unable to act on it, we would. Senator McCain ripped Senator Obama for this position, and said that he would not perform operations in a "sovereign country" without their permission or cooperation.
Given developments since the primary, has either candidate changed their position, and why?

3) Will the candidates speak about our inability to take care of our current military commitments, let alone new ones?

Just this week, Secretary Robert Gates admitted that we do not have the necessary forces to boost our numbers in Afghanistan until the Spring, meaning we cannot meet the request of the NATO Commander in the region.

Clearly, our military has been stretched too thin. Unfortunately, those who would do us harm will not wait to create new hot-spots until we can effectively deal with them.

Will the candidates clearly answer how they will ease the strain on the military, allowing us to wage an effective war in Afghanistan, and have the necessary forces to respond to future emergencies?

Additionally, does Senator McCain believe that we can keep forces engaged in Iraq, send necessary forces to Afghanistan, and engage in any future simultaneous conflicts without a military draft? For example, if we begin a military conflict with Iran or Russia, can we fight a three-front war without a draft?

4) Will the candidates lay out what steps short of military action they would take to prevent a nuclear Iran?

Both candidates have made clear that a military option against Iran is not "off the table," as the world community tries to keep the regime from developing nuclear weapons. However, will the candidates be challenged on what steps they would take to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, to prevent the need for a military option? War veterans, especially, are more interested in ways to avoid war than reasons to get into a new war, and the candidates must convince us that they are serious about avoiding military conflict.

Specifically, Senator Obama has been clear about his desire to open diplomatic communication with Iran (something that was recently undertaken by Secretary Rice. Talking to Iran is something also endorsed by five former Secretaries of State: Powell, Albright, Christopher, Baker, and Kissinger. Senator McCain has characterized this as direct talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and mocked the idea.

Even beyond diplomacy, what steps would the candidates take to deter a nuclear Iran, so that the military option does not even need to become a serious consideration?

Additionally, do the candidates agree that a strike on Iran puts our forces in Iraq at risk from a counter-attack by the Mahdi Army, and Israel at risk to counter-attacks from Hezbollah? How would they prepare for that, if military action against Iran is taken?

5) Given news that Prime Minister Maliki has hinted that he prefers a timeline that removes troops by 2010, but was pressured to accept a 2011 timeline due to U.S. political considerations, will the candidates consider moving a timeline to exit Iraq back to 2010, or do they consider that unrealistic?

Also this week, the Iraqi government let it be known that they pushed back a timeline for withdrawal of troops, due to pressure from the Bush administration, apparently due to U.S. political considerations.

War veterans would be extremely troubled if troops were stuck in Iraq for a whole extra year, due not to Iraqi requests, or the situation on the ground, but due to considerations in the Presidential Race. Another year in Iraq would mean another year of troops killed or wounded in action; another year that we could not send enough troops to Afghanistan.

Given that the Iraqis believe we can leave a year earlier than has been set by the Bush administration, would the candidates consider working with Iraqis to move the timeline back to 2010, from 2011? Further, if Maliki's charges are true, would Senator McCain urge the Bush administration to move a timeline for redeployment back to the Iraqi request, and keep the Senator's political aspirations out of the equation?

Crossposted at VetVoice.com

Comments

[bonitatortuga]

good job on maddow, jon.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/MSNBC_VoteVets_org_on_McCain_s_Love_of_Troops_Veterans

[billw8017]

Our troops have succeeded in every mission. They settled the WMD issues. Hussein is dead. Iraq has a democratically elected Parliament. They have gone from success to success AND WE ARE STILL THERE!

With each success, the mission was changed. This is "mission creep," or, as it is also known, the quest for defeat.

It is time to declare victory and bring the troops home.

[WordFlowers]

Well, as a Dem and a woman, I was very impressed by both Senator Obama and McCain tonight on the issue of national security although not agreeing with McCain I have to admit, he looked and acted more knowledgable and experienced on the subject of Iraq, Pakistan and Russia. What bothers me is that throughout the debate, he belittled Obama's "understanding" of the issues, saying repeatedly that Obama "doesn't get it" or "again, Sen Obama lacks understanding" yet when presented with the option (as Obama first mentioned) to STOP spending the billions we have committed to this unpopular war instead of cutting and vetoing "spending" as McCain repeatedly offered to as President, McCain simply ignored the immense cost to the American people this war is waging on US and just sidestepped.. It is ONE THING to acknowledge we have enemies, it is another to keep on finding them and spending OUR budget and BORROWING tfrom China, etc. o uphold this infinite battle with the universe.

McCain could be seen to have won this debate IF you are up for more WAR, more posturing as a President who will continue face of the HAWK instead of restrained diplomat. I mean, can we afford this man's thinking? DO WE HAVE the DEEP POCKETS or the HEART to take this journey after Bush, four years with this forever soldier who will put "defending America" first and supporting programs that benefit Americans, last?

[Herkybird]

Thanks babe for your support of Obama. As a Dem and a man..who is also a Viet Nam vet I can tell you that McCain is a disgrace to the veterans of all wars!

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Mr. Soltz, I'd like to ask you if you know and/or believe that a hypothetical President McCain would "take care of veterans", as Sen. McCain asserted tonight.

[McMullen]

Interesting how the debate actually turned into a discussion of the meaning of "strategy" and "tactics". Looks like McCain prefers the tactical victory of the surge while Obama recognizes the strategic failure of it.

[tigs]

WE just watched the debate again and noticed Mc cain praising Petraus for the surge, he made no reference to Colin Powel and his efforts in the war. I hope Powel noticed that, and comes over to Dems where he will be appreciated, Powel is very straight and sincere, very popular, never really know what the repubs did to him, i missed all that.

[browncupid]

Obama has been getting pounded almost on a daily basis for trying to make that distinction. Why haven't any if the Vets gone to CNN or MSNBC or even Fox News to stand with him on this issue. People who supposedly support him (and should since he is fighting all of the rhetoric about the surge being an outstanding success), have let the republican party continue to try to make him out to be completely dillusional about this entire subject.

[deminmo]

What is really sad is that Congress is more stressed over
funding for people who speculated money away, than to find
the money for Veterans hospitals, health care and equipment.
It will be interesting to see what takes place tonight.

[LeonBNJ]

I would also add a 6th point - Will you properly fund health care as much as needed including mental health to returning and rotating soldiers? Many soldiers have faced shortages of needed services from the Veteren Hospitals and that is just plain wrong. McCain has substantial issues on this point while Obama is much better.

[Yermammy]

This Veteran wants what many want. Leadership. Wisdom. Justice.
Barack will get my allegiance when he pledges it to the flag.
The way he does that is to call for impeachment of the standing President and the Vice President of the United States of America.
I love, enlisted and served this country because I love the USA above any and ALL men.
Do the right thing Senator Obama, impeach the men that would curse the Constitution.
Do your duty as an American Citizen and a U.S. Senator.
Show your leadership. NOW.

[JaneReaction]

A lot of people are missing the entire point about the military, confusing military spending with veterans spending. Huge differences. According to the voting records of US Senators over their careers, only five garnered 100 percent ratings voting for vets, and all were Democrats.
The three worst were Crapo, Craig, and....John McCain. The lousy hypocrite voted against vets 8 out of 10 times!!!
Get real.
Dont listen to the MSM vet outfits, Legion and VFW, but to the actual records.
You can look them up yourselves, but nobody does, merely content to believe what somebody else claims. I DID THE WORK. McCain does not have your back.
And your five points are all about the current situation, even you are not talking about VETERANS AFFAIRS.

[Berettasskeeter]

Thanks. The VFW and American Legion both have offices that watch and advocate for veterans. Both organizations often disagree with either side of the aisle. Administration politics is not respected when it comes to veterans affairs, or for that matter, to active affairs. That said, both organizations are generally very conservative, for which I'm grateful. Their first thought is the defense of the U.S. The same cannot be said for the other side of the aisle, which generally will leave Obama out in the cold as far as endorsements from these organizations. Neither have ever endorsed a Socialist!
Semper fi

[enlightened patriot]

I hope the issue of the surge comes up. Lehrer needs to move away from the issue of who did or did not support the surge and start asking the candidates to address the fact that there were many other factors besides the surge that led to the reduction in violence in Iraq.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95076165&ft=3&f=1001,1003,1004,1031
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/07/AR2008090701847.html
I'm sick of hearing McCain talk of his support for the surge winning the war. That is such a grossly oversimplified, ignorant view of what's going on there.
www.theenlightenedpatriot.blogspot.com

[MourningDude]

You libs are too much.

During a debate, you should flesh out WHAT position you took, and WHY. Not sit and squabble over the various influences that may or many not have contributed along with that decision, which are completely out of their control.

Who cares what underlying causes contributed to this or that? We need to know the thought process behind the decisions that a President will have to make.

Obama's stance on the surge was one of bone-headed, stubborn opposition. He opposed it for all the wrong reasons, and continued opposing it long after it was clearly succeeding in stabilizing the country.

Of course you libs want to talk about this or that underlying contribution to the current state, since it's out of Obama's control. The last thing you want to have debated is decisions that Obama made, because he flubbed them up badly.

[murphysgirl]

Anyone could come to a conclusion that if you add more troops there will be a reduction in violence...The purpose of the surge was to decrease the violence in order to achieve political reconciliation. Those goals have not been met, so therefore the surge was not a complete success...

[JustMyWords]

Personally, I'd like to see it if Obama made a different point entirely - if he'd been listened to in the first place, there wouldn't BE a surge, because we wouldn't have done something as stupid as invading Iraq in the first damn place.

[Siryn]

Fair questions, but the answer to #5 really cannot be answered now other than "maybe" because it really does depend on the conditions on the ground. Ask that question in 9 months.

[Apis]

I think Obama's position and answers to each of these questions are very clear. And if not mistaken supported by the majority of the US popluation (if you take away the political bias aspects).

BTW, claiming victory over the surge is like claiming victory over fixing a pothole on a dead-end road!

[Berettasskeeter]

Fixing that pothole, like the surge in Iraq, sure makes a tremendous bit of difference to those who live there!
Semper fi

[Apis]

I don't necessarily disagree with you. The military is not the target of my venom. You are being led by a bankrupt leadership and I do not think it is in the best interest of our military to fix "potholes" around the world. There are some greater strategic goals and needs that should be considered. The whole idea that the military can lead the US to create a stable democracy in the Middle East is not logical. BTW, although the figures vary depending on the source, Iraqi civilian deaths are above 500K. A pretty big price to pay for the quality of life shown to the US public. Did not look like much of an improvement from Saddam. If the goal of the military is to improve living conditions, there are some places in Africa that could use your services!

[ralph10]

Except in a few months that pothole breaks up and you have that same pothole again.

[LizM]

Jon, with great respect and deference to Senator Obama - he is the 'candidate', after all - the answers to all of these questions have already been provided by his vice presidential nominee!

And, therefore - unless I am completely out in left field - the Obama-Biden ticket is PRECISELY what the troops and veterans are looking for...if I may be so bold and presumptuous to say.

I thought you knew. :(

[Atlantavet]

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question - What will the status of US forces be after this December? The UN resolution expires, and there is no agreement with the Iraqis.

Based on their strategy with the financial collapse, the administration will come running in with a three page document. It will include a timetable for withdrawal, give immunity to the administration, and include some future financial obligations.

If no agreement is reached, our troops might be confined to base. What's our new president going to do?