VPs Should Be Pressed On Unresolved Issues From First Debate

In a post before the presidential debate last week, I wrote about five key things< /a>that veterans would be watching for in the debate. And, most of those questions were actually addressed, which was great. But two issues remain very much unresolved. It's my hope that there's a deeper examination of these issues tonight.

To repeat my questions, the first was:

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 was an area of disagreement between Senators Obama and McCain on the surge, with McCain using the occasion to say that Senator Obama "didn't understand." In fact, it was McCain who didn't understand.

Senator Obama was correct in saying that the surge - in the form it took - was a tactical move. What everyone expected the surge to be was a complete strategy; an intense build-up of the three legs of our efforts in Iraq - political, diplomatic, and military. The surge of troops was supposed to give the breathing space for intense diplomatic and political work to bring Iraq together, and working as a unified nation.

What ended up happening is that we employed only one of those tactics, the surge of troops. And, while that's had the tactical success it was supposed to have, there's been no real strategic success, because we failed to take part in intense shuttle diplomacy in the region, or do the tough political work to help Iraqis resolve their internal problems.

In the Vice Presidential debate, I would very much hope that Gwen Ifill would revisit this unresolved dispute between the campaigns, and ask the Vice Presidential candidates to discuss it further. It's absolutely critical for troops that we know the next President understands what the surge "strategy" was supposed to be, and why the "surge of troops" tactic hasn't brought about the strategic goal we had hoped for.

My second question was:

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?

This is one of those weird areas where a Vice Presidential candidate seems to disagree with the top of the ticket. John McCain continued to rip into Barack Obama for his stance that he would move on actionable intelligence to strike at top al Qaeda targets in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, if the Pakistanis wouldn't. McCain disingenuously painted this as Obama saying he would attack Pakistan.

That's just a gross distortion. The lawless region in the upper west portion of Pakistan is a haven for terrorists, and an area that Pakistan never has controlled. The only time this area is really Pakistan is on a map. Otherwise, it's a land without a nation, or rule of law, which terrorists have successfully squatted. Even then, Senator Obama wasn't talking about carpet bombing the area, but OKing surgical strikes to take out al Qaeda leadership in that lawless area. It's very different than saber-rattling against Iran - when McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman directly threaten to attack a nation. Or, when Governor Palin hinted at a hypothetical war with the nation of Russia.

A couple days later, Governor Palin seemed to back up Barack Obama on Pakistan, telling a voter that we would do whatever it takes to go after al Qaeda, including crossing over into the borders of Pakistan. While not McCain's position, Palin was actually correct in the way she answered the question.

A couple days after that, in an interview that was chaperoned by Senator McCain, Governor Palin walked away from that position, and engaged in further distortion, claiming Senator Obama wanted to let terrorists know when and where we would strike them.

Now, it's no shock that Governor Palin (and John McCain) are making the same arguments that those in the Democratic primary made against Obama when he originally stated his policy. Joe Biden even made a similar argument at the time. However, as with the war in Iraq, Senator Obama was quite prescient. The situation has changed since the primary. Pakistan has become much less a partner in getting al Qaeda, and has shown no interest in allowing the U.S. to operate in the border region. In fact, they're firing on our troops when we try to go after terrorists. That's why even the Bush White House has come to the Obama position.

Secondly, the McCain-Palin argument is, in fact, a softening of his own past position. During the primary and well into this year, Senator McCain said that he wouldn't act inside Pakistan, without their consent. Now he's not saying he wouldn't, just that he won't say it out loud. So, McCain is actually closer to the Obama position now. I presume by election day, Senator McCain will start saying that he'd approve strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan, as well.

If this is all very confusing, that's the point - the McCain campaign is looking to muddle the issue for the voters. But both of these issues - strategy versus tactic, and when we would strike al Qaeda - are issues where troops need absolute clarity from our future commander in chief, or commander in chief in waiting.

For the troops and vets, I'm hoping that Gwen Ifill doesn't let these unresolved issues slide, tonight.

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

Comments

[paixa3]

The surge is a past issue. Obama made it so when stupidly agreed that it worked........he, Obama, has really turned into a politician, first rate, since he was campaigning in January.

[Rule Of Law]

John, I'm 5 days behind the cycle,but want to pose the same question I asked John Bruhns. Respond with a column soon that addresses this very real concern:

It's crunch time. Bush is bringing home a Battalion to police the streets during the civil unrest his agents provocateur will foment shortly before the election. (This troop movement has been reported here and in the Military's own paper)

The event will probably be one of the marches or demonstrations against the mishandling of the Economy and the Republican powered ripoff in the name of Goldman, Morgan, Citi etc. He has in place the NSPD 51 which gives him complete dictatorial power over Every form of police and military in the country. And under the Patriot act, any demonstration can be construed as treason.

This is, of course, my worst case scenario--but the truth is that you don't pass those laws and write those signing statements if you don't plan on using them! And another truth is that Obama may never see DC! Martial Law has a way of changing Everything.

So my question to you is--When our boys (and Blackwater thugs from every 3rd world dictatorship) are ordered into the streets to put down what will be termed "A Rebellion," will they remember who they are and their oath to the Constitution, or should we prepare for slaughter in the streets and the trains and buses to begin filling the FEMA camps with the survivors?

[Scarabus]

Choice #1: What happened in Iraq was due to a number of complicated (and in some cases both tactically and morally dubious) factors, many of which were in play well before the escalation; none of which is easy to comprehend.

Choice #2: The "surge" worked.

Which will the corporate media choose? Duh! Watch video of the Stephanopoulos interview of Obama. In his questions S. took it as a given that "the surge worked." And, in responding, Obama implicitly accepted that fantasy.

Can we really expect that to change?

[DoTheMath]

To add a few more veterans' issues:

How does McCain (or Palin) define "winning" in Iraq? McCain keeps saying we can't leave until we win and that Obama wants to us to lose, but how would McCain know when it was time to go? What kind of "victory" does he think is really possible for us there?

How does McCain square his "don't let them die in vain" position with the knowledge that a soldier would give his life to save his buddies? Isn't making those surviving buddies stay in harm's way indefinitely for no well-defined mission dishonoring those who died so others might live?

Why did McCain oppose updating education benefits for veterans so they would regain the value they had before costs went up? I know McCain's answer for this. He said some veterans might not re-enlist if their benefits were too good. Sigh. He should have to explain that to the American people, and I'd like to hear how Palin would answer a question about McCain's position on this.

[tholin]

Please roll the endless-loop clip of Bush vowing "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and the nations that harbor them", followed by "He's only one man-I just don't think about him much anymore". Now the crisp footage of Obama's cogently articulated Qaeda policy from the primaries, then cut to black and white of McCain intoning "That's not something you should say out loud".

"There's an old saying out west...I think out west, that says 'Wanted - Dead or Alive'. (Spot ends with stock footage of smiling, waving Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Omar, et al.)

[Roses]

I completely agree with you. I was disappointed that Obama didn't defend all his positions. He knew that in a debate format it was important not to get trapped into always defending his positions. He was faced with either sounding defensive or letting an incorrect explanation by McSame go.....and he chose the latter. In retrospect I guess this was the smartest strategy. His main objective was to sound both positive and presidential in order to show undecideds out there that he belonged on that stage. He accomplished that objective, so I guess he was successful.

It was just hard to see it and know that he knew (because he explained it before) and was deciding to let it go..... I hope that Ifill follows up.

Obama/Biden '08......for vets!

[kenx]

So Sen. McCain will chase bin Laden "to the gates of hell", as long as they aren't in Pakistan. He doesn't even agree with himself.

[Berettasskeeter]

Jon, I think you haven't been reading the comments of many HuffPo readers/commentors. Surgical strikes are not! Collateral damage (the deaths of innocents) is inevitable, for all intents and purposes. Will you take an oath to defend that collateral damage when it occurs, and do so in these pages? I doubt it. But, to not do so merely labels you, again, as a partisan Liberal who will go to any lengths to defend the Left.
Semper fi

[marinemomof3]

Put the 'kool aid' down son. Jon does a wonderful job defending the military, active and veterans.
Unlike McCain who for 4 years in a row, '03,'04,'05 and '06 voted against funding veterans health care issues. Not to mention stating that the 21st Century 'was too expensive' for those who have served since 9/11/01. Point of fact is for every $1 of tax payer money spent to our veterans, we get back over $7. Understanding ECONOMICS, which McCain DOES NOT, is a great investment.
We need it in these times.

I salute both Jon and Paul who have done so much for my three Marines~ These two men have inspired me years ago to get involved to make sure what happened and continues, to our beloved Viet Nam vets NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN

Semper Fidelis

not to a party, not to a corporation, not to a man

but to OUR COUNTRY

[Berettasskeeter]

I agree that Jon does a fair job of defending the military to an anti-military group like HuffPo's normal crowd. But, it's faint praise, to say the least. Can you remember if Jon has ever praised the heroic acts of any specific men or women in uniform? I cannot, though I admit I've only been reading him for a little over a year. Can you remember him championing any veteran running for office, other than Democrats? I cannot, which makes him partisan Democrat, which goes against the grain of most GI's.
Its well to name all the funding issues and votes that McCain stood against, but what is the meat of those votes? Were those issues simple ones, straightforward votes to increase funding for vets issues? Or were they loaded with pork and other measures that McCain felt he had to deny?
McCain NEVER said he does not understand economics. You've restricted your reading to Leftist sites, haven't you?
I salute anyone who honestly has the best interests of our boys and girls at heart. I think Paul does, because he does not seem to through partisan issues into his arguments. Jon, on the other hand.....
Semper fi

[Poyda]

Agree - my post from a week ago.

McCAIN'S BIGGEST GAFF - INCORRECTLY 'CORRECTS' OBAMA ON TACTIC/STRATEGY. A strategy is a plan for achieving broad objectives. A tactic is a way of performing that strategic plan. The strategy for Iraq is something along the lines of deploy economic, diplomatic and military power to create a stable democratic Iraq that is able to stand as an ally against terrorism in the Middle East . . . blah blah. Obama correctly referred to the 'surge' as a 'tactic' - a way of practically arranging military forces so as to reduce insurgent violence in certain parts of the country. This being one tactic among many others, such as economic reconstruction etc, aimed at moving the US toward achieving its strategic objective. The surge, as a tactic, may be a stellar success, while the strategy remains unattained. Of course, the strategy for Iraq has not been achieved (hence, troops coming home 'in defeat' language). So, if the 'surge' is a success, it cannot also be the strategy for Iraq. Despite this being obvious, McCain somehow tried to 'correct' Obama by stating the exact opposite. This gaff is the largest gaff of the campaign. It reflects McCain's lack of any grasp of military concepts. As Obama pointed out, we should not be arguing about 'tactics' (if so, let's talk about economic construction tactics etc), we are deciding who will be determining the strategy! And on the strategy, McCain/Bush have been spectacularly wrong.

posted Sep 27,