Iraq: Whose Line is it, Anyway?

15.07.2008

I wanted to sound off on the ongoing national security duel between John McCain and Barack Obama. Two big developments today. In a comprehensive speech in Washington, Obama did something we've not really seen from Bush or McCain: He defines "success" in Iraq, in echoes of the grilling he and other senators gave General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker during their most recent testimony on the war.

"At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave …. 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 reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up."

Eve's great post from the April hearings foresaw Obama's line of thinking--what can we tolerate leaving in Iraq?--a question with an answer he'll no doubt "refine" further by the end of his planned trip to Iraq.

Secondly, Eli Lake reports that McCain will announce a troop "surge" in Afghanistan. An aide says a speech he'll deliver in New Mexico

will call for an increase in combat troops and the creation of a special Afghanistan tsar to coordinate policy toward the country. "There will be a surge for Afghanistan. It will be moving combat troops in and applying the lessons from Iraq and the strategy that was successful in Iraq and taking that to Afghanistan," this official said.

This is remarkable for two reasons--and says something different about both candidates. Firstly, the McCain surge idea sounds totally political (which doesn't mean it's a bad idea). It effectively undercuts some of Obama's critiques about McCain's committment to the fight in Afghanistan, which he went after in that op-ed yesterday and reprised in today's speech, saying

Senator McCain said – just months ago – that “Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.” I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that’s why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

Obama then goes ahead and says it's he who wants a surge in Afghanistan, linking it to a broader theme of his national security agenda--an interdisciplinary approach to foreign relations that emphasizes development in weakened states as part of a president's toolkit:

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

Obama has been making this case for investing in Afghanistan and Pakistan for months. By calling for a surge in Afghanistan, McCain is essentially agreeing with him. But politically, McCain's move is likely to get equal if not more credit because--wait for it--McCain is calling his plan a "surge" in explicit terms. (Don't knock semantics!) Certainly, McCain's support last month for a plan to station up to 58 bases in Iraq, whether Maliki likes it or not (he doesn't), not to mention all of this "100 years" talk and his raging Manichean bellicosity suggests we won't have additional troops for Afghanistan at the speed we would under Obama's 16-month Iraq withdrawal plan. But I think this framing gives McCain the upper hand. Don't we all remember how well the last "surge" went? And who supported it and who opposed it?

Update: Abridged. Link to McCain's speech calling for an Afghan surge here.

--Dayo Olopade

Posted: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:00 PM with 4 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

GSpinks said:

Great post Dayo.

First, to pick a nit, a surge is temporary by definition. Obama has not even *hinted* at decreasing the additional troop levels at any time prior to capturing the leaders of AQ. I don't think McCain does either, but he is obviously trying to capitalize on the name recognition to garner support for his plan, which does not help me take him seriously. A good plan shouldn't need name-recognition to garner support.

Second, to answer your question, I think we are, once again, seeing McCain ride Obama's coattails by adopting Obama's stance for himself. The only clear thinking from John "Top Honors From Veterans Groups" McCain, is an ability to recognize what would sound best to a particular audience. Unfortunately, John "I named the defensive line of the Steel Curtain as my squad mates" McCain is also showing a propensity for speaking these words that will sound good regardless of the lack of basis is actual facts.

July 15, 2008 6:34 PM

teplukhin2you said:

So the man who's argued for more than a year that a surge in Iraq could not succeed and (despite all evidence from theatre) was not succeeding is now arguing that what we need in Afghanistan is... a surge?

What was that line about Dylan Thomas? "How Much Me Now Your Acrobatics Amaze'?

July 15, 2008 10:41 PM

scrubbyoak said:

Obama's position on Afghanistan has been consistent, tep. McCain is the one suddenly shifting position from "pressure Nato allies for additional troops" to now following Obama's lead to shift more combat brigades to Afghanistan. Is that a flip-flop or what?

Besides, if McCain maintains his status quo position on Iraq - "stay the course" - where would he get the three combat brigades for Afghanistan?

Is it possible that, on this topic, your fire is directed at the wrong candidate? Just asking, tep.

July 15, 2008 11:48 PM

Robert Powell said:

McCain understands the difference between a military and a political campaign. Sure you use the right jargon for name recognition when opinion polls, and ultimately electoral polls, are at stake.

I'm not sure Obama does. I'm not at all concerned about his statements on "the surge" because simply adding 30,000 pairs of boots didn't actually do a damned thing. We had a lot more troops in Iraq when we were losing control of the situation five years ago than we did at the peak of "the surge". Within reason it's a lot more important what the troops are tasked with doing than exactly how many of them there are.

I am concerned about Obama's apparent confusion between a political campaign, in which it's useful to "look tough" in Afghanistan in order to fend off charges of weakness in Iraq, and the actual military campaign in Central Asia. The very last thing we need is to touch off a war with Pakistan because we don't really know how to differentiate between "Taliban" and "Pashtuns", and imagine that with a few more combat brigades we can play New Sheriff in Town in a place that's famously a graveyard of empires. If we really want to stabilize Afghanistan, we should buy up the opium crop and donate it to the WHO.

July 16, 2008 7:28 AM