Letters to the Editor
burlydee
Published Letters: 268 Editor's Choice: 7
-
for a different perspective, here is TPM with the same story.
[Read the article: McCain, Obama find common ground in Afghanistan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did Obama Force McCain To Flip-Flop On Afghanistan?
John McCain likes to paint Barack Obama as a naive follower on key national security issues. But by moving up his planned Afghanistan speech by two days to follow Obama's, and by agreeing that more U.S. troops are needed there, McCain appears to be following the Illinois Democrat on a major proposed shift for U.S. foreign policy.
Last month, Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Michael Mullen said he needed at least three brigades shifted to Afghanistan, but that "troop constraints were preventing such a move."
Democrats trumpeted the statement as vindication, but McCain's campaign held its line and "resisted calls for more [U.S.] troops" in Afghanistan.
Indeed, in a policy paper published by Foreign Affairs last fall, McCain argued that any increase of forces in Afghanistan should be comprised of NATO troops instead of U.S. military personnel:
"Our recommitment to Afghanistan must include increasing NATO forces, suspending the debilitating restrictions on when and how those forces can fight, expanding the training and equipping of the Afghan National Army through a long-term partnership with NATO to make it more professional and multiethnic, and deploying significantly more foreign police trainers. It must also address the current political deficiencies in judicial reform, reconstruction, governance, and anticorruption efforts."
According to the Boston Globe, that was a position the McCain campaign repeated last week:
But McCain's advisers say that if he becomes president he would build on President Bush's decision to rely on NATO forces - which now have about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan - and would prod Pakistan to take on Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters camped inside its borders.
"There is no easy answer, but clearly Pakistan needs to do more to crack down there," said [McCain senior foreign policy adviser Randy] Scheunemann.
Flash-forward to today. As the AP reported, McCain was set to discuss the economy, with an address on Afghanistan scheduled for Thursday. But the campaign ditched its planned focus on jobs (although not its banner) to follow Obama's lead -- not only by talking about national security but by joining him in calling for more American troops in Afghanistan.
Nearly an hour after Obama finished his D.C. speech, in which he repeated his call for "at least two additional combat brigades" to be sent to Afghanistan, McCain stepped to his podium across the country in New Mexico and tried to one-up his Democratic rival. As McCain's website now says, the Arizona Republican wants "at least three additional brigades" for the fight in Afghanistan.
But if Adm. Mullen can't find the troops to provide for a three-brigade increase in Afghanistan, how does McCain (who, unlike Obama, doesn't have plans to begin removing forces from Iraq)?
And what has happened in the last few days to provoke McCain to shift his months-long opposition to sending more U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan?
-
I love how FISA
[Read the article: McCain advisor woos Clinton supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is now the big issue for Clinton dead-enders. But not a peep before she lost. Get over yourself ladies.
-
Just One thing...
[Read the article: Equal opportunity unemployment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When exactly was the economic recovery, and why wasn't I informed?!?
-
Salon jumps the shark, again
[Read the article: Obama is saying the wrong things about Afghanistan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is what qualifies as reporting? Please point to a statement by Obama that said what Juan Cole asserts. Principally Cole writes “Stepped-up military action, however, is still the central component of his plan.” Huh? Where is this idea even coming from. There is no hint from any of the quoted statements of Obama that military action is the CENTRAL COMPONENT of his plan. Rather, it is obvious that diplomacy would come first. Obama wants to send more troops to Afghanistan, so therefore he must want to infringe on Pakistan sovereignty without negotiation... What a horrible jump in logic. And if the Bush admin was pushing for strikes in the FATA areas, than where are the strikes? umm, am I missing something.
I mean, there is nothing in the article but a lot of quotes, with no context, where the author assumes 90% of what he writes. And the headline is atrociously over the top. Aggressive stance? Finish the job in Afghanistan and don’t let Al Qaeda regroup in Pakistan is hardly the most aggressive stance I’ve heard in the past 8 years. This statement, from the article, contradicts everything Cole writes:
"What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaida targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should." He added that he would put pressure on Islamabad to move aggressively against terrorist training camps in the country's northwestern tribal areas." So he is going to put pressure on them (diplomacy) and than if that doesn't work he will act. How is that making military action the central component of his strategy? That is the strategy of every government that has ever been in a conflict! I wonder why that last part wasn't quoted...
Basically this web site has made its mission to publish hit piece after hit piece against Obama with rather flimsy evidence, than have the no-nothing parrots who come on these boards spout their own baseless Obama accusations and rumors. This site is basically bullshit.