Petraeus Closes Book on McCain Plan for Afghanistan
General Petraeus' remarks yesterday should close the book on John McCain's overly-simplistic strategy for restoring stability to Afghanistan. After today, it's difficult to imagine anyone saying that McCain has even the slightest idea of what he is talking about when it comes to that country.
For the entire campaign, McCain has repeatedly made the point that to achieve victory in Afghanistan, the U.S. military need only look to the 'surge' strategy that proved so successful in Iraq. During the presidential debate, McCain invoked the surge, and said that "that same strategy will be employed in Afghanistan," but even before that, he ripped Barack Obama, saying "it is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan." Yet for all this confidence and bluster, it took just a few short remarks by General Petraeus to cut the central premise of McCain's Afghanistan policy off at the knees. Just look:
"People often ask, 'What did you learn from Iraq that might be transferable to Afghanistan? The first lesson, the first caution really, is that every situation like this is truly and absolutely unique, and has its own context and specifics and its own texture,"
General Petraeus is the pre-emininent figure when it comes to counter-insurgency, so vaunted in his profession that followers of his way of war have gifted him with near mythic status, calling him "King David." Others may have contributed more to the discussion of counter-insurgency, but no figure is more associated with the term than General Petraeus. An open declaration by the man who has mastered the lessons of Iraq, that those same lessons cannot be simply mapped onto Afghanistan, is absolutely devastating to McCain.
Let's be clear. Petraeus is not saying that there aren't things to be learned from Iraq that could be useful for Afghanistan. Quite the opposite. He readily admits that there may even be some concepts which translate well into the Afghan milieu, such as encouraging local reconciliation and empowering local actors to stand against the Taliban and al-Qaeda similar to the awakening councils in Iraq.
Yet even there, Petraeus' statements undercut McCain; for it is precisely those concepts from Iraq, which Petraeus says would work in Afghanistan -- reconciliation and empowering local groups -- that John McCain has repeatedly shown he doesn't understand. If McCain cannot grasp the teachings from Iraq that do apply to Afghanistan, how can he be expected to comprehend the more critical pieces of Afghanistan's strategic puzzle -- the dependence on opium production; a larger and more entrenced tribal movement; damaging incursions emmanating from a country with which we are allied; and most troubling of all, a history of hostility to any kind of foreign intervention -- that are totally unique.
There is now near universal recognition that Afghanistan is in serious, serious trouble. The fact that we have gone from naked admissions that Afghanistan is an "economy of force campaign," where we can only "do what we can," to grim assessments that the country "is in misery," testifies to how quickly the situation is deteriorating. Either John McCain or Barack Obama is going to inherit a big problem, with a window for a solution that is closing rapidly.
A key criteria for assessing both candidates' fitness for commander-in-chief is whether they have a strategy that can arrest this devolving problem. Barack Obama has committed himself time and again to a comprehensive plan for restoring a modicum of stability to Afghanistan, one that depends on a re-deployment from Iraq. General Petraeus too, in his new role as head of Central Command, appears to have quickly broadened his strategic view, and has begun to pay Afghanistan its due attention. But John McCain is stuck, insisting on looking at this national security crisis through the prism of Iraq, repeating the same fixation, the same insistence, the same failures that have marked the last eight years.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Taliban split with al Qaeda, seek peace. Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country's bloody conflict -- and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN."
Taliban SHOULD have done this in 2001 and saved everyone untold grief, Instead they had to be defeated first. Al Qaeda is now finished!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghan.saudi.talks/index.html
General Petraeus operates on the basis of "First with the Truth" and is completely aware of the complexity of each country. He does not use the word "victory" for example in Iraq. In an interview with the BBC just before he assumed command for the wider operation including Afghanistan, he demonstrated comprehension and sensitivity completely absent from McCain's declarations in the debate with Obama, yet McCain invoked Petraeus in saying Obama would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. You can be sure this was a complete fabrication, consistent with McCain's delusional foreign policy notions of effective strategy. McCain is playing to low-info high testosterone men who shoot first and never admit mistakes. Might is right mentality of Anglo-Saxon imperialists in the nineteenth century.
Lucky for us, our presidents don't "make up" the military stategy. They let the generals do that, then make an informed decision.
But I think whichever one wins -- Obama or McCain -- whatever strategy Petraeus suggests will be implemented.
Dear John,
Tanks, but no tanks!
Signed,
America
I am still asking, how can a P-O-W. for 5 years attained the knowledge to win wars? Especially one who was 5th from the bottom of his class at the academy?
Whereas the military prowess of the guy who's scared of icky guns, loves Barbra Streisand, watches his weight, dresses very neatly and never, ever forgets to moisturize.....? hmmm....
I am still asking, how can a P.O.W. for 5 years attained the knowledge to win wars? Especially one who was 5th from the bottom of his class at the academy?
You mean as opposed to the military prowess of the One who's scared of icky guns, loves Barbra Streisand, scared of overeating, dresses very neatly and never, ever forgets to moisturize?
This whole notion that McCain, and voters in general, have that, because McCain was in the military, and even more importantly, a POW, he somehow is an expert on military matters is ridiculous. I spent 14 years active duty as an officer in the Army and I can tell you that plenty of military people do not know what they are doing out there. My own felling is that McCain is overcompenstating for his personal failure as a pilot. Getting shot down and captured by the enemy is not a ringing endorsement for your qualifications as a military man. He further dishonored himself by confessing to crimes against the Vietnamese people and allowed himself to used for propaganda purposes by the enemy. While we can sympathize with his situation and forgive him for what he did, we must realize that, had his father not been an important Admiral at the time, we would not be debating McCain's candidacy at all. His dishonorable discharge for cooperating with the enemy would have precluded his running for any public office. More importantly, his simplistic view of the wars is dangerous. Even GEN Petraeus won't go there. But as long as voters think that chanting "USA" is a cure-all for our country's problems, people will think that McCain is a Hero, and that he has some special insight to how to win a war.
What we all know will happen is that McCain will pretend like he does not even know Petraus has said these things and people listening will also pretend like McCain has an answer that even Petraus does not endorse.
Registration dates are coming quickly, check your local registrar office for the date
or go to www.voteforchange.com
I hope this comes up tonight or in the next debate.
I think Obama, if the topic arises, will take full advantage. He's unwilling to punch back at mccain's continuous raft of lies, but he seems very content with using other renowned people's words to strike at mccain's stupidity while supporting Obama's own reasoned plans.
Why does it strike me that John McCain is still trying to win the Vietnam war? He really seems foolish when he keeps insisting that a conflict like this can be won. What would constitute victory and why does he seem to think that it can be achieved in Iraq?
It is almost like he spent 5 years in that prison camp and now wants to make sure that he didn't spend that time for nothing. He's going to make sure that America wins a war, whether they want to or not.
I agree.
Just like the Vietnam War the Iraq boondoggle was and is a MISTAKE of catastrophic proportions - we pathologically created a mess for ourselves not out of true necessity but because of of ideology.
Like Vietnam the Iraq "War" undermines our financial and military strength, compromises our values, puts us at odds with very real usual allies and the public they answer to, puts us unnecessarily at odds with ourselves, and, to add insult to injury, gives more reason for ideologues to grab "wartime" powers to embellish their imperial presidency plans and shift wealth and power to their friends.
We cannot remain in the grip of such lunacy and criminality. We, the 70% of us that are capable of electing something other than B/C or their followups M/P because we are not hardwired authoritarian people, and who should be able to see through distractions to reality, must get out and VOTE. And before pulling the lever think really hard and honestly about what is in the best interest of us, the World, and our families and friends, now and in the future.
If you who should be mentally free enough to make an independent decision look at the messes now and in our past, and what caused them, and intellectually honestly say M/P is best. for our present and future. then pull that lever. But to me that action would represent an enormous oxymoron by any rational and moral measure.
Can you imagine President Palin calling the shots?
"Yup yup. I called out the Alaska National Guard and they did some yellin' and a fightin' and they made sure Putin won't be showin' his face in our airspace anymore!"
Wait. That's too coherent. Well, scramble it up yourself, kids.
For one, McCain was never a military strategist. He was a tactician. And from what I've been reading about him crashing planes, he may not have been very good at tactic execution.
I bet when this is all over Iraq will pretty much look like what Joe Biden suggested.
A partitioned country , Sunni, Shite, and Kurds having their own autonomous regions
governed in a very, very, very loose confederation. There will be plenty of blood flowing, but that's what self determination is all about. We have helped arm all the sides,it's time to step aside and let the civil war begin. The sooner it starts, the sooner it will be over. Sorry, if I sound heartless, but it will happen. Everyone of my buddies who has returned from their 2nd or 3rd rotation has told me this will happen. Whether intentioanal or not, it has been set up to roll out this way. Democracy is tough and unpredictable, just ask Bush , Condi Rice and Hamas...........might want to visit Gettysburg as well.
I know how to win wars (NOT). Surge, surge, surge (NOT the only answer). I look to Palin for foreign policy advice (YIKES!!!). Sen. McCain - it is YOU that doesn't get it. It's not about party loyalty. It's about THE best presidential ticket for our country. Republican voting for Obama/Biden.
I know how to win wars (NOT). Surge, surge, surge (NOT the only answer). I look to Palin for foreign policy advice (YIKES!!!). Sen. McCain, it is YOU who doesn't get it. Forget party loyalty. Republican voting for Obama/Biden.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
