Feb 13, 2012
Obama Vs. McCain | Views on Afghanistan
If elected, Democratic nominee Barack Obama says he would immediately withdraw thousands of ground troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to help undermanned US forces defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. "It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan." Obama believes that the United States has relied too heavily on forces from NATO which has little experience in guerrilla warfare. "Afghanistan should have been our fight," said retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak, national cochairman of Obama's campaign. McPeak blamed the Iraq war, where the United States has about 140,000 troops, for diverting the Pentagon's focus on Afghanistan, where only 32,000 American troops are stationed. However, McCain, says Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism. He believes that NATO and Pakistan must do more in Afghanistan until the United States can draw down its commitment in Iraq - a position which tracks Bush administration strategy. Read more on Daily Outlook
- 's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Obama stresses getting out
Obama stresses getting out of Iraq, and a desire for peace; but, unless hard pressed, he doesn't want to mention Afghanistan. War is war, and I want the U.S. out of both countries, period. I don't think switching from one to the other is really any better or saving any lives in the long run!
The positions of the two
The positions of the two candidates have been widely reported as the same, or at least highly similar. Such is not the case. Obama's timeline for withdrawal from Iraq -- thus allowing the redeployment of troops to Afghanistan -- is far faster than McCain's. Obama could potentially hope for some redeployment by the end of his first year in office, where a President McCain would be unlikely to bolster ISAF and OEF until 2011 or, more likely, 2012. With annual increases in international troop casualties rising at up to 64 percent per year, both plans may be 'too late' (in a variety of manners), though McCain's the worse. Furthermore, Obama is placing a greater emphasis on non-military assistance, though the likelihood of non-PRT-delivered aid in parts of the country may be unrealistic. Still, bolstering the Northeast, North and West with ODA could dampen the mounting discontent and, at least, delay their siding with the Taliban-led insurgency (or, though less likely, capitulating to them). Finally, McCain's emphasis on NATO playing a greater role -- which, I believe, the New York Times attacks him for a bit too harshly -- does raise the question of who he intends to comprise this Afghan surge. The Lithuanians really do need to pull their weight on the global stage a bit more if they intend to continue calling themselves a superpower...
On one last point, in case anyone actually stumbles across this posting, let's consider halting the criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. He should be elected out next year, and treating him like an unruly American collie only serves to undermine the credibility of the government and lead to the conclusion that the Afghan State is a flimsy, Vichy entity.
The rhetoric used by the
The rhetoric used by the candidates can be telling. An interesting consequence of using the nomenclature "war on terror" is that it's fairly easy to describe wherever you're doing a good deal of fighting as the central front. This is likely not a coincidence.