McCain will call for a surge in Afghanistan
posted at 9:56 am on July 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Our friend Eli Lake gets the scoop on John McCain’s upcoming policy speech on Afghanistan at the New York Sun, although it shouldn’t surprise anyone who has followed McCain’s positions on the war. McCain will not only adopt a “surge” strategy of counterinsurgency warfare like that which succeeded in Iraq, he will appoint a special “tsar” to oversee the war effort in that theater. But the real meat of Lake’s article comes later, when he interviews Charles Hill, a foreign-policy expert who advised Rudy Giuliani and who should get more attention from McCain:
Mr. Hill, who was executive assistant to Secretary of State [George] Shultz and is currently a professor of grand strategy at Yale, said the success of American arms in Iraq makes possible more deployments to Afghanistan. “The Iraq war is over. Wars don’t come to an end the way they used to. It ended as best it can end about last December. The front has shifted to the Afghan-Pakistan border. We’ve chased them into that corner. That is a very different situation and difficult to handle because of the border and because the terrorists have a sanctuary there. We can’t get into that sanctuary, but Pakistan does not govern it. It is a black hole in the map of world order,” he said.
Mr. Hill went on to say that the exact tactics that were successful in Iraq would not necessarily apply to Afghanistan. “The surge in Iraq was really a version of clear, hold, and build. When you take territory, you hold it to keep the population secure, in some sense the people would do the rest. They would be entrepreneurial,” he said. “We can’t hold territory in the tribal areas of Pakistan, another way to make the surge workable on the ground has to be found, and that has to be in some form with the Pakistani military.”
Hill’s analysis goes against most of what we hear from the punditry — which is quite unfortunate, because he has this exactly correct. Osama bin Laden attempted to expand al-Qaeda into Iraq, either before or after the invasion — take your pick. This expansion intended on building the pan-Islam Caliphate, the first such attempt since the US kicked the Taliban out of Kabul. Had we retreated from Iraq, it would have succeeded, but instead we redoubled our efforts and defeated bin Laden’s dreams of empire.
That forced AQ to fall back into its power base in the frontier FATA provinces of Pakistan and attempt to win back Afghanistan. As Hill notes, AQ hasn’t bothered with Iraq in months, and the remaining AQI forces there have been left twisting in the wind. The war’s focus has returned to Afghanistan, where they are having more success — and where the same strategies may not be as effective. Afghanistan is not Iraq; it doesn’t have Iraq’s infrastructure, nor its natural resources in oil. Getting tribal support there will be exponentially more difficult since the Taliban have built-in tribal support from Pashtuns.
Still, McCain’s focus on counterinsurgency makes more sense than attempting to win this through traditional combat strategies alone. It will take a lot more troops, more than the two combat brigades Barack Obama proposes, although that is at least a step in the right direction. Obama’s support for escalation — there is no other word — also makes it easier for McCain to propose strategies built on strength.
Look for a more in-depth presentation from McCain than the one delivered thus far by Obama. The strategies that produced victory in Iraq can be adapted to Afghanistan, and the momentum can be transferred there as well.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No flag pin.
Dave Rywall on July 15, 2008 at 9:58 AM
how can the Dems oppose this, when they chose not to politicize the “good war’, i.e. Afghanistan? Maybe they’ll start adopting Ron Paul/Michael Moore lies and claim we are only there to “build Oil Pipelines”
jp on July 15, 2008 at 10:01 AM
McCain needs to call for removing troops from Germany and telling the Germans to man up, along with the French and contribute
jp on July 15, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Wrong again. The pins are in his teeth. They’re all colored red white and blue.
Knock him for other stuff, but not that. That dog don’t hunt.
JiangxiDad on July 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Rave Drywall is a pefect name for you Dave.
McCain was just “riding in a bomber plane“, too, right?
profitsbeard on July 15, 2008 at 10:07 AM
What we actually need is a third front in this war. I call for a surge on congress. Imagine how many problems that would solve.
fogw on July 15, 2008 at 10:09 AM
thats for sure!
but the dumbos vote for anything with a D after it…
right4life on July 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM
So would this dandy concept known as term limitation. If the President can only serve two terms in office, that should also apply to every member of Congress. This “wisdom through experience” excuse that has the current crop of loons and dinosaurs wandering the hallowed halls is part of the reason for the current mess we have in Washington.
pilamaye on July 15, 2008 at 10:13 AM
McCain is on a roll. Obambi can’t change his position fast enough to keep up. Obambi’s sensitivity about the slightest criticism is exposing him as the Daly machine sham that he is. This is getting embarrassing. People are starting to feel sorry for BHO because he is so confused.
McCain is proving that he might not be the first choice, but leaves no doubt he is the ONLY choice.
volsense on July 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM
A surge in Afghanistan would be welcome but trying to make a Maginot Line out of the border is a loser. Until we can get the PAK government to kick in the back door, then blocking the front door won’t do a bit of good.
Limerick on July 15, 2008 at 10:16 AM
I’m not questioning his incredible record of service to his country.
I’m questioning the fact that he is not wearing a flag pin, an issue that bloggers made important in this election.
Dave Rywall on July 15, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Bob Barr can get Obama elected though, thats the back door threat
jp on July 15, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Doesn’t every member of Congress receive a guaranteed pension and health insurance for the rest of their lives regardless of how many terms they serve. Get rid of the lifetime perks and enact term limits.
trs on July 15, 2008 at 10:17 AM
The real problem, and one for which neither candidate has a solution, is Pakistan.
As long as we are unwilling or unable to cross the border and pacify that tribal area, they have a safe haven from which to strike.
We allowed Pakistan to slide into chaos.. to a place where they don’t control portions of their own country, which is EXACTLY the same strategy that Hez used in Lebanon. We are now in a place where if we go after the bad guys, we will be invading another sovereign nation… which is horrible on a PR front.
Key is that somehow we have allowed the idea that a countrys government can allow somthing to happen from their soil, without consequence, to flourish.
Romeo13 on July 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I propose a surge in strategic and tactical bombing and strafing in Waziristan. It is not ruled by Islamabad, therefore is not under it’s protection.
Tony737 on July 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Drywall,
You are (as usual) only presenting half the story. It wasn’t the fact that Obama was not wearing the pin that got him into trouble, it was the reason he gave for not wearing the pin.
When you understand the difference, you will be taking your first step on the road to enlightenment.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM
It’s not necessarily important to wear a flag pin.
What we were criticizing is that BO dissed wearing flag pins, & now he’s wearing one.
jgapinoy on July 15, 2008 at 10:24 AM
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!!!
crazy_legs on July 15, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Like it or not, McCain is wearing battlescars underneath that suit of his. No flag pin required.
This is in contrast to the empty suit candidate, who wears a flag pin, then doesn’t, then does again, trying to make people believe he is some kind of patriot. Which he isn’t.
fogw on July 15, 2008 at 10:26 AM
McCain was one of the first to realize that Bush’s first strategy in Iraq wasn’t going to work, & he called for an Iraq surge then.
His years in the military & his work in the Senate have suited him well to become our 44th Commander-in-Chief.
jgapinoy on July 15, 2008 at 10:27 AM
McCain would make a great military leader. He will make a terrible executive. Domestic issues are clearly not his strength.
fourstringfuror on July 15, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Not gonna happen while the Pak military and ISI is full of Taliban sympathizers.
a capella on July 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM
This what the strategy all along, calm Iraq and flatten Afghanistan.
Comrade Obama is like a post turtle, pointing the way the same as you play spin the bottle. Spin the post turtle, never know which way it’s going to point, or at what. He’s so flexible.
tarpon on July 15, 2008 at 10:29 AM
To put a little dose of reality into the situation-
The US Military is stretched thin as it is with both active and Reserve troops logging multiple deployments. Before singing McCain’s praises for this little bit of military strategy, I want to know where the manpower is supposed to come from. Our troops have been asked to do a very big job over the last 7 years, their equipment has also had hard use. McCain needs to explain how he intends to keep up this high-level of activity.
Our troops deserve better than commitments without substance backing them up and John McCain of all people needs to explain that to them before indicating he’s going to be known as the “surge President.”
highhopes on July 15, 2008 at 10:30 AM
after 6 years, and its a six figure pension.
McCain needs a VP strong on the domestic issues, and let them have a Cheney type role. the President job is getting more and more complex as the world gets more complicated. We almost need a CinC and an Executive for domestic issues at the same time
jp on July 15, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Iran will be a worse version of Pakistan problem, if we allow them to get nukes
jp on July 15, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Your comments are exactly the kind of pointless nitpicking that are a waste of everybody’s time and energy. The weight that you assign to wearing or not wearing a pin is ridiculous. And the poetic “wearing battlescars” bit is the best of the bunch. Given the grave state of the nation and the world, pins were never an issue and should not have been made into an issue. Next.
Dave Rywall on July 15, 2008 at 10:32 AM
That’s funny coming from you, since you were the one who brought it up on this thread.
*snort*
fogw on July 15, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Then why is the first post on this thread YOU mentioning the fact?
highhopes on July 15, 2008 at 10:41 AM
trs on July 15, 2008 at 10:17 AM
The congressional pension was changed in the 1980’s.
amr on July 15, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Romea,
“We allowed Pakistan to slide into chaos”
We never had a choice there; there was no “allowed” about it.
exhelodrvr on July 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Yep. Rock/Hard Place. Do we run the risk of destabilizing PAK to get the opportunity to strike, or do we sit back and hope PAK man’s up? We need to do decide something pretty quick. NATO will only take so many losses before the Europeans start pulling out.
Limerick on July 15, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Hill was a likely candidate for Secretary of State in a Giuliani administration: I was impressed with what I learned of him during the campaign. I hope McCain finds a place for him on his team.
irishspy on July 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM
a new stratgy to deal with Afganistian?
How about:
To crush your enemies, to drive them before you, and to hear the wailing of their women!” …
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:48 AM
How quickly we forget. The news media paints the picture of failure in Afghanistan exactly as they did in Iraq. Convention wisdom, consensus thinking has us convinced that we can’t win in Afghanistan because the Taliban have sanctuary in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Everyone believes that the tribal areas are monolithic in their support of the Taliban.
The truth is, Pakistan is as divided a place as anywhere else. The Taliban use force, threat of force to intimidate recalcitrant factions into acquiescence. The very same strategy that worked in Iraq, where Sunni clans tired of the brutality of AQ caused a shift in loyalty can work in Pakistan.
AQ, and the Taliban better watch their back because their neighbors are going to turn on them.
rockhauler on July 15, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Pakistan is already unstable and the Taliban infiltration into their military and intelligence systems isn’t going away on it’s own. I keep remembering the strong horse/weak horse analogy made famous by Osama. That Northwestern Province is going to have to be cleansed or Afghanistan will eventually become our next Viet Nam, soaking up resouces till we withdraw. They’re counting on that. I just don’t know if NATO will go along with a major effort into Pakistan. Then it just bogs down into another political wrangle.
a capella on July 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM
or how’s this:
My men don’t dig foxholes. I don’t want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don’t give the enemy time to dig one either. We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and by showing the
GermansJihadists that we’ve got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we’re going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.Patton
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Afghanistan has the same problem that we have re: insecure borders. Pakistan has been the host to radical Islam since 2002 when Al Q and the Taliban were pushed out of Afghanistan and into the Northern Tribal Provinces.
I remember that, I was there.
Out of respect to Paks soviergnty, we did not pursue. The radicals regrouped, ran training camps, refitted with recruits from various madrassas and ME nations and they still have safe haven there, regardless of billion$ of US Aid for the Paks to fight the War on Terror.
Amongst those of you who believe that the Force is stretched thin, It Is. Clinton comitted troops to the Balkans and guess what? They are still there! When will we redeploy them? The US Military fights wars. Peacekeeping and Nation Building is not now or then an apropriate mission for US Forces.
Do we need to grow the size of our Forces? Yes. But at what cost? We have an All Volunteer Force. Do any of you want to see the return of the Draft? Now that’s a real crowd pleaser!
Afghanistan could benefit from a surge. Our NATO Alies need to step up and send more forces for that. Pakistan needs to get into the fight within their borders or recieve no further military aid. Humanitarian and military aid funds are mismanaged by their government anyway, just as the Coalition Provisional Authority pissed away billions in Iraq
with zero accountability. I saw that first hand as well.
Obama does not have a clue on solving any of those issues. McCain has a limited grasp but chooses poor mentors on most issues. The ME is a tough neighborhood. Normal diplomacy simply fails in most attempts. They do understand raw military power but they view concessions as weakness.
It is anyones guess as to a successful outcome right now as we have not brought the full might to bear there in the Stans. Obama won’t do that. McCain might.
old trooper on July 15, 2008 at 11:00 AM
“My men don’t dig foxholes. I don’t want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don’t give the enemy time to dig one either. We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bit*hes, we’re going to rip out their living Godd*mned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.”
Patton
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed
Patton.
Now put that fighting view against what we hear from our leaders today? and yet people wonder why after 7 years we are still fighting these wars?
If we would have stood up to Al quada in Iraq in 2003 the people would have had an awakening sooner. If we would destroy the taliban in Afganistian and ban their teaching the war would be won. You must fight your enemy to win in war. we are not at peace we are at war and the policies should reflect that reality.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I don’t think so. Iraq and the Northwest Province are light years apart in terms of respect for any form of central government and secular values. It’s gonna require some major ass kicking and probably more collateral casualties. A big part of the problem lies in the arbitrary demarcation lines in Pashtun territory drawn by the Brits back in the 1850s.
a capella on July 15, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Unseen,
We could use more Patton.
You-Eh-Vee on July 15, 2008 at 11:18 AM
It’s a shame that McCain hasn’t yet decided to call for a surge in defending the border. Of course, we’ve removed those troops now, so the Border doesn’t even have the token enforcement that we had given it.
I wonder how low McCain will have to go in the polls to demand a surge of our troops to defend the border. Oh wait, I forgot, he’s a Senator, and is used to low ratings.
Snake307 on July 15, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Wearing or not wearing a flag lapel pin doesn’t become an issue unless other conduct of the candidate shows it to be part of a larger pattern. Other things that might make the conspicuous refusal to wear a lapel pin relevant are, oh, lets see..
Endorsements by terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah;
A 20-year mentorship with a nutcase preacher who openly despises America;
Having your initial electoral campaign financed and supported by unrepetent domestic terrorists;
A dimwitted wife who spouts off about how she’s never been proud of America until it was smart enough to give her husband the Dem nomination for president;
A plan of military action that consists mainly of an immediate surrender in Iraq;
Assertions that “the world” should determine what kind of cars Americans drive and the correct temperature for our homes.
Anyway, one presidential candidate made the lapel pin an issue because he knew that his nutroot supporters on the Left would lap up his renunciation of sucha a visible symbol of patriotism. Hint: It wasn’t McCain.
Cicero43 on July 15, 2008 at 11:44 AM
It’s human nature to form cliques, which become factions. Clan association, tribal loyalties, look at the competitive animosity between urban neighborhoods. Expand that tendency with someone gifted with charisma, touched by megalomania, and it grows. Pakistani central government has clearly been ineffective at building a national identity. We’re not even sure which side the ISI is on.
Right now it appears that the Federal ‘administered’ tribal areas are united under the banner of Islam, but there are always individuals who covet status, fame, fortune who can be turned. We even have them here in the US.
The weakness of the Taliban, and AQ is their brutality. What is required is choice, we have to demonstrate to people in those areas that there is an alternative. It will require the central government of Pakistan to show some strength. That’s the question, can we get Pakistan to ’step up’ the way the Iraqis have?
rockhauler on July 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM
You cant win when you don’t know who the enemy is. America does not know the enemy. He is described as some nebulous group of religion hijackers with their own twisted agenda. That’s safe, the truth is too scary to contemplate dealing with. That is the method of dealing with the elephant even here at HA.
With this method of dealing with Islam, it will be a long, long struggle but eventually Islam will win.
BL@KBIRD on July 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM
BL@KBIRD on July 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Great point. I have heard nothing from Obama concerning the threat that is Islam. His head is buried in the sand. At least, McCAin seems to realize what we are up against.
I suggest every American read Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabriel. What her homeland went thru is what America will go thru if we dont realize what our enemy is.
becki51758 on July 15, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Buy the opium at a discount and sell it to the pharma companies. It is the Afghan national crop. Otherwise, the Taliban has almost emdless resources.
INFDL on July 15, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Strong exception to the idea that we want to engage the Pakistani military. My understanding from folks in the region is that their armed forces are completely co-opted by the same influences that run all those radical madrassas we worry so much about, and is structured completely along religious lines.
Here in the states, a politician worries about making a racially-charged comment and ending his carrer. In india and Pakistan, the equivalent would be to make a religiously-charged comment, which could result in jail time (in India) or death (Pakistan).
That’s the big deal - it’s like trying to go after MLK with an army composed entirely of his following. (***NO denigration of Dr. King here - just trying to paint a similarly-charged picture. Can you imagine the chaos that would cause? That’s what life in Pakistan is right now.) It’s not practical for us to ally with the Pakistani armed forces at this point.
There are other problems as well. The “black hole” region referred to is the Pashtun region, which has never been governable (like for centuries) and which even the British only tried to neutralize through manipulating their constant infighting. In this area, there are no noncombatants, no peaceful influences - they’re in constant conflict anyway. This is why AQ et al have chosen it as a stronghold, and it is a real hornet’s nest. It is not even close to modern - it is feudal.
On the other hand, its feudal status makes it a very poor base of operations, and AQ cannot really coordinate any serious offensives from there. Logistics and communications are things we interdict VERY well.
AQ will always be with us, IMO - but if we manage to bottle them up in the very armpit of the planet, I think that’s a sustainable situation. They’ll always have cheerleaders, and the locals will always see them as heroes (unless they screw things up again, the way they did in Iraq). You have to wonder how much we really need to care about being loved and respected by the folks in that region, however.
Prufrock on July 16, 2008 at 9:06 AM