McCain's Afghanistan Policy

So yesterday John McCain said that thanks to the success of the surge in Iraq we can withdraw brigades from there and launch a new surge in Afghanistan, and also Barack Obama is a communist appeaser surrendercrat even thought his is precisely the policy he's been calling for for months. But now it seems McCain didn't really mean that and instead his plan is to ask NATO nicely to send more troops to Iraq.

Back in the real world, the question of enhanced allied contributions is yet another reason to favor a withdrawal timeline from Iraq. No European government that's at all concerned about public opinion wants to be seen as doing anything that amounts to facilitating the war in Iraq. Sending troops to Afghanistan so that President McCain can keep his 100 year occupation force at full strength for as long as possible isn't going to fly in Canada, Paris, Germany or anywhere else. But given a firm commitment to withdraw, and a real determination by the United States to focus on our Afghanistan/Pakistan issue in a serious way, you could see some allies stepping up and pitching in.

Comments

Words fail me at how idiotic this post is. Laughable.

Posted by Judd | July 16, 2008 10:00 AM

Words fail me at how idiotic this post is. Laughable.

Well, that's certainly a sound argument you've provided. I know I'm convinced.

Posted by Seitz | July 16, 2008 10:06 AM

"Words fail me at how idiotic this post is. Laughable."
Posted by Judd

I imagine words fail you a lot. You should probably stop trying to use them publicly until you get better at it.

Posted by Njorl | July 16, 2008 10:08 AM

"isn't going to fly in Canada, Paris, Germany or anywhere else"

So Paris is a country? Or are Canada and Germany cities?

The sort of crap McCain puts out makes me seriously question his judgement. Has it always been this bad? When Bush and company pulled this you could just chalk it up to disingenuousness, but it makes McCain seem like he's got some senility setting in.

Posted by Jeremy | July 16, 2008 10:16 AM

McCain's Afghanistan Policy

Ha, ha, ha, ha; no -- he has a policy? McCain?

By "policy", I'm assuming that would be a deliberate plan of action guiding decision-making, to achieve a rational outcome in the best interests of the United States after eight crippling, self-destructive years of rule by Johnny's bunkie, Lil' Boots.

Ha, ha, ha, ha; Yeah, right.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | July 16, 2008 10:21 AM

"We'll send our troops. No, wait. We don't have 'em. We'll send other troops. Yeah, that's the ticket." --John McCain

Hey, John. Are you saying that we had to go into Iraq (something you supported from the get-go), slog around there for over 5 years while allowing Afghanistan to languish, all so we could figure out how to win in Afghanistan? What a friggin' moron!

But hey, he knows how to "win wars".

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 10:24 AM

But given a firm commitment to withdraw, and a real determination by the United States to focus on our Afghanistan/Pakistan issue in a serious way, you could see some allies stepping up and pitching in.

I disagree. Our allies know how badly we've cluster-f***ed everything we've touched over there. They won't send their people into harm's way with the likes of Bush or McCain in charge. Why would they? What has either man done that evokes confidence in their leadership abilities.

F***! McCain can't even keep Sunni and Shiite straight, can't maintain anything resembling a steady position on how long and under what conditions we stay in Iraq, and thinks that the president of Iran holds all the power!

If Obama is elected, I think we can expect help. If McCain is elected, I think they'll assume he's Bush's 3rd term and sit this one out.

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 10:34 AM

Not a lot happens in western Afghanistan without Iranian backing and next to nothing happens in the critical region of eastern Afghanistan without Pakistani/ISI backing (cf. Steve Coll), so how about we scrap the whole Afghanistan strategy and develop a plan on how to deal with those two countries instead.

Posted by novakant | July 16, 2008 11:04 AM

Matt,

Correction needed. You say:

"But now it seems McCain didn't really mean that and instead his plan is to ask NATO nicely to send more troops to Iraq."

You actually mean:

"But now it seems McCain didn't really mean that and instead his plan is to ask NATO nicely to send more troops to Afghanistan."

Last time I checked, the War on Iraq was not a NATO operation. And McCain, while addle-brained indeed, is not so addle-brained that he just accidentally decided to try to turn it into one.

Posted by Sebastian Dangerfield | July 16, 2008 11:17 AM

I seriously doubt that, under any conditions, NATO-Europe will be sending troops anywhere to engage in real combat.

And if NATO-Europe did send 25,000 infantry under direct US command, I'm not sure what they accomplish that a bazillion Russians couldn't.

That said, the fact is that the US Army has picked up a lot of counterinsurgency knowlegde that might help.

Posted by John Bragg | July 16, 2008 11:18 AM

Matt,

Correction needed. You say:

"But now it seems McCain didn't really mean that and instead his plan is to ask NATO nicely to send more troops to Iraq."

You actually mean:

"But now it seems McCain didn't really mean that and instead his plan is to ask NATO nicely to send more troops to Afghanistan."

Last time I checked, the War on Iraq was not a NATO operation. And McCain, while addle-brained indeed, is not so addle-brained that he just accidentally decided to try to turn it into one.

Posted by Sebastian Dangerfield | July 16, 2008 11:20 AM

...so how about we scrap the whole Afghanistan strategy and develop a plan on how to deal with those two countries instead.

No, no, no. John McCain said that all we learned in Iraq is applicable to Afghanistan. They're the same situation. Same 1000 year old religious divide. Same problems with oil revenue. Same problems with ethnic cleansing. And obviously the issue of Pakistan and Iran are the same.

Every time you hear McCain tell you how he knows how to "win wars", remember this video that shows how WRONG McCain has been on Iraq.

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 11:22 AM

I'm a dumbass for not googling before I commented, but our allies have come up with 28,000 troops for the ISAF. The point about rules of engagement and real combat stands.

"You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."--Homer Simpson

But how many combat troops do we really expect President Messiah to wring out of peacetime militaries to fight in a country that didn't attack them, in a new strategy for a conflict that started seven years ago.

Posted by John Bragg | July 16, 2008 11:46 AM

Sending troops to Afghanistan so that President McCain can keep his 100 year occupation force at full strength for as long as possible isn't going to fly in Canada, Paris, Germany or anywhere else.

This is a pretty idiotic statement by Matthew.

After all, Canada, for example, already has a good number of troops in Afghanistan, even did even during the surge. So why does Matthew seem to think that there is no way Canada would provide some additional troops if President McCain asked them to?

This is not explained - and, indeed, couldn't be explained by Matthew. He is just making something up out of thin air to appear to provide support for his position regarding Iraq. But, in the reality-based community, where I reside but apparently Matthew doesn't, it is perfectly reasonable to think that we could negotiate with other NATO countries to provide more troops for Afghanistan.

Posted by Al | July 16, 2008 11:46 AM

it is perfectly reasonable to think that we could negotiate with other NATO countries to provide more troops for Afghanistan.

Obviously the US can negotiate, duh, but Iwouldn't bet the farm on it:

Germany on Friday rejected a formal request from the United States to send forces to war zones in southern Afghanistan, the latest setback to the NATO alliance as it tries to scrape together enough troops to battle resurgent Taliban forces and stabilize the country.

Meanwhile, NATO has been struggling to persuade some members not to worsen matters by pulling out.

This week, for example, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper threatened to withdraw his country's 2,500 troops next year from around Kandahar -- a major hot spot -- unless they receive reinforcements. Following a rise in casualties, the Dutch and British governments are also facing domestic pressure to reduce their military presence in southern Afghanistan.

With a 250,000-member military and Europe's biggest economy, Germany is facing considerable pressure to do more in Afghanistan. But it is confronted by powerful obstacles at home. Among them: a strong reluctance to send soldiers into battle given the country's Nazi legacy, and popular opposition to a war that is seen by many Germans as America's problem.

In addition, German lawmakers and military officials differ with Washington over the best strategy. While the Pentagon has focused on fighting the Taliban and securing territory before reconstruction projects begin, Germany prefers a softer approach, with an emphasis on economic development and training Afghan forces.

Posted by novakant | July 16, 2008 12:21 PM

link

Posted by novakant | July 16, 2008 12:24 PM

Matt is wrong about other countries only seeing Afghanistan as an extension of the Iraq war and thus, unwilling to contribute.
Afghanistan is a NATO-approved mission and some countries have stepped up and fought courageously and well. Notably Canada, The Netherlands, UK. Shirkers unfortunately include Germany leading the way, attempting to hide behind others and only do "safe missions".

While in no way as important geostrategically as Iraq is in that now winding down with success conflict, Afghanistan is still a big problem to Human Rights Happy Europe, and to them and others in the region like China, Russia for the heroin crop. Europe has finally agreed that their NGO work is largely futile until or unless Afghanistan's government is able to own the country, not just Kabul. They are quite receptive to American, Euro, and neighboring Muslim countries (ex-Soviet 'stans) emerging strategy that seeks to rollback and suppress the Taliban and deny them drug revenue.
None has indicated any desire to invade Pakistan to find a few fugitives and risk a broader war with all Pashtuns, or even PAkistan itself.

Black Messiah, if elected, will not have any luck assembling a large coalition of countries to expand the war into Pakistan to try and find and bring his 6 or so "fugitives from civilian justice for their crime of 9/11" to the US for "up to the death penalty". After all, the cries to invade Mexico to "get" over 250 murderers hiding there, and over 6500 felony warrant fugitives for other crimes done in the USA is virtually nill in Democrats.

Posted by chris ford | July 16, 2008 12:38 PM

This is a prime example of Matt talking through his hat about a subject he clearly doesn't have a clue on. As noted, Canada and others are doing what they can, but let's face facts--"what they can" is severely limited, and not just by the fact that Bush is unpopular. I saw then-SACEUR General Jones state on BBC that continental European forces are "less than 10% usefully deployable". It would take a major political decision for most NATO countries to restructure their forces and commit to massive defense-spending increases in order to have significant forces to send to Afghanistan, probably in the same year as drilling in ANWAR brings down gas prices if both operations start today.

Posted by robert powell | July 16, 2008 1:06 PM

Didn´t you all forget one thing?

Back in 2001/2002 most European NATO countries were more than willing to send troops to Afghanistan. And to all regions.

Your mighty Rumsfeld resisted. Remember?
First, just accepting only a few special forces under US command. Then some months later grudgingly accepting some thousand NATO troops but restricted to Kabul only.
When the situation got worse, suddenly he accepted the idea of small provincial reconstruction teams (do I remember the term right?).
All in the name of having a free hand elsewhere in Afghanistan for US forces.

And after having made a mess in Afghanistan it´s now the fault of Europe? Forget it.
Wasn´t it a US general saying that 400000 troops were needed now in Afghanistan?

Totally impossible. And that´s a major reason why European countries are hesitating now. Why send more troops if it won´t do any good?

What might have worked in 2002/2003 won´t work today. And air attacks on wedding parties and beating some Afghans to death didn´t help either.

Sorry, but I´m pretty pessimistic about Afghanistan now. Why send more of our troops if your US government during the last five years changed a solvable problem into an unsolvable problem?

Posted by Detlef | July 16, 2008 1:42 PM

Complaints about Rumsfeld's lack of diplomacy are factual, but don't have much applicability to the current situation. Lots of help from allies isn't in the cards now, and there wasn't going to be very much then no matter how nice we talked. There's simply not much there, there.

I'm pretty skeptical about Afghanistan as a "solvable problem" then or now if the idea is that we're going to quickly address the accumulated problems of a country that's been ravaged by war for decades (actually thousands of years with a few time-outs), and has for a very long time been competing with Bangladesh and Congo for the bottom in most measures of development. We can and should help, but no one should be under any illusions that sending a few more combat brigades is going to make much positive difference, and if they're used clumsily we may start a war with Pakistan that could make Iraq look like Grenada.

One thing that would make a big difference would be to buy up the opium crop and donate it to the WHO. Even dumping it into the sea would be cheaper and more effective than our current policy of punishing starving Afghan farmers for the recreational choices of people in rich countries.

Posted by robert powell | July 16, 2008 2:18 PM

Powell for once in his life gets this right. Afghanistan is a total loss and absolutely cannot be won - and neither can we do anything effectively in Pakistan to deal with Al Qaeda.

And Obama simply does not understand that - or he does and he's lying about his intentions just to get elected.

Read my lips: NO solution in Afghanistan.

Pepe Escobar points this out in Asia Times:

THE ROVING EYE
Obama's brave (new?) world
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG17Ak02.html

To say that Obama's plan - sketched earlier in an op-ed piece for The New York Times - is more realistic, thoughtful and sensible than that of rival Republican Senator John McCain's "road to victory" in Iraq would be an understatement.

But ... the devil in those (brave) details
Does Obama's proposed redeployment in Iraq automatically translate into no US troops in Mesopotamia by the summer of 2010?

No. It translates into "a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al-Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's security forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress."

There are many problems with this proposition. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is just a component of the Islamic State of Iraq - an umbrella jihadi organization. Al-Qaeda has no more than 1,000 jihadis in total. Moderate Sunnis could get rid of them whenever they feel like it. Obama even admits "true success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not re-emerge."

So if Iraqis are in charge of their own security, one doesn't need US soldiers who, by the way, did not beat back al-Qaeda; US taxpayer's money, distributed to the Sunni Awakening Councils to the tune of US$300 a month for each former guerrilla, did.

Obama also does not explain how many soldiers will be part of his US "residual force" in Iraq. Hundreds? Thousands? Without speaking Arabic, with no access to local intelligence, mistrusted by local populations, what exactly would they be doing stranded in the desert sands? And who will judge who is a terrorist and who's not? The government in Baghdad or, once again, Washington?

Now for those lofty goals
US corporate media have given a blank check to McCain on foreign policy. McCain is a war hero masterfully playing the likable guy role and the media fall for it like babies. As for McCain's policies, essentially they spell the "surge" in troops in Iraq is working, the war may go on for 100 years, we're on the way to "victory", and let's bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Obama for his part recognizes that "in fact - as should have been apparent to President [George W Bush] and Senator McCain - the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was."

The problem is that, for Obama, the central front is Afghanistan. That's when he runs into trouble - when he has to tackle the "broader strategic goals".

Obama promised he would "send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] allies".

Obama suggests tenuous hints of a mini-Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, already promised - and not delivered - by the Bush administration after the fall of the Taliban in late 2001: "That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption ... We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism."

But Obama essentially frames the US mission in Afghanistan as a fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The problem is, the US has not captured any major al-Qaeda operative in the area for a long time. And the historical al-Qaeda leadership is ensconced either in the Waziristans or in Chitral - Pakistani tribal areas, not Afghanistan.

So what purpose would serve Obama's extra 10,000 US troops in search and destroy missions in eastern Afghanistan - bound to inflict inevitable, non-stop "collateral damage" to loads of Pashtun civilian peasants and villagers?

Even the Pentagon now openly admits it is fighting an asymmetrical war in Afghanistan against a motley crew of Taliban, disgruntled Pashtun tribal chiefs and warlords financed by US intelligence in the 1980s - from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to the Haqqanis. This has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. It's about fiercely independent Afghans refusing what they identify as foreign occupation - by the US and NATO. This is symmetrical to Sunnis and Shi'ites fighting foreign occupation in Iraq.

Obama is a big fan of NATO. He says. "We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents."

Barnett Rubin of New York University, arguably the top US expert on Afghanistan, would tell Obama that the key to solve the "war on terror" is not Iraq. But it's not Afghanistan either. It is Pakistan.

Obama seems to agree, when he says he's "co-sponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al-Qaeda".

But Obama seems to ignore that Pakistan is a feudal society run by roughly 50 families where the only solid institution is the army - and the intelligence services. Even the Council on Foreign Relations, in a new report on the tribal areas along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, admits "the Pakistani government lacks the political, military or bureaucratic capacity to fix the tribal areas on its own".

Obama for his part is unable to spell out how - with just a fistful of dollars - he'll be able to "fix" tribal areas that have been living in fierce independence for centuries. Even assuming the money would reach the tribal areas, it is not certain it would erase the structural root of "terror" - social inequality in a rugged, impoverished land.

The giveaway
So Obama's "broader strategic goals" include an unspecified "residual force" in Iraq and more combat brigades in Afghanistan. Is this so radically different from McCain? Obama in fact may have given away his true position in April, during General David Petraeus' US Senate hearings. That's when Obama, face to face, asked Petraeus, the head US military man in Iraq, a truly revealing question - ignored by US corporate media:

"When you have finite resources you have got to define your goals tightly and modestly ... you don't necessarily have to answer this, maybe this is a rhetorical question. If we are able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without US troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success? It's obviously not perfect, there is still violence, there are still traces of al-Qaeda, Iran has influence more than we would like, but if we have the current status quo and yet our troops have been brought down to 30,000, would you consider that as success, would that meet our criteria or would that not be good enough and we have to devote even more resources to it?"

The current status quo in Iraq - and with at least 30,000 "residual" US troops. Withdrawal it isn't. Is this "change we can believe in", part of a new "overarching strategy" - or is this the same status quo as defined by half a century of continuous, many would say imperial, US foreign interference?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 16, 2008 5:14 PM

Looks like McBush's trolls are really racking up the points. Do you guys get McBush ball washers for trolling here?

Posted by merl | July 17, 2008 2:53 AM