John McCain: Weak on Afghanistan

By: The Grey Havens
Published On: 7/23/2008 11:12:32 AM

As Barack Obama ends his landmark trip to the Middle East and Europe, he has proven his grasp of the critical issues facing the US and the world.  He has also proven that he is ready to fill the role as leader of the free world left vacant for so long by the mismanagement of conservatism and the Republicans under Bush.

At the same time, John McCain has proven time and again that he lacks the most rudimentary understanding of geopolitics, not to mention geography, history, and military science.

In an interview on CBS with Katie Couric, McCain proved that he does not have even a remote grasp on the factual history of the Sunni Awakening or "the surge".  This amounts to a threat to our vital interests in the region.  Specifically, his demand for a continued focus on Iraq implies a clear weakness on Afghanistan.  He would continue battling for political advantage, while choosing to deny our troops in Afghanistan the resources necessary to emerge victorious in our struggle there.  

The mainstream media's infatuation with John McCain has officially become a clear and present danger to America's vital interests in the Middle East.  For CBS to cover for McCain on such an egregious lie is beyond the pale for journalism, and further proof that corporate control of media is a threat to American democracy.

With his penchant for "gaffes" McCain has provided the supporting evidence.  He doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, he thinks that Iran is training al Qaeda.  He believes that Iraq and Pakistan share a border.  The guy thinks that Purim is equivalent to Jewish Halloween.  Indeed, these can no longer be taken individually as "gaffes", but it is time to clearly connect the dots and conclude that John McCain is incapable of the understanding necessary for leadership.  McCain fails the Commander-in-Chief test.  For political reasons he is choosing to lose the war in Afghanistan.

History has decided.  America has decided.  The war in Iraq ended in victory long ago, and it is time for America to begin the end of our long occupation so that we can focus on the growing and urgent threat in Afghanistan.

Barack Obama has the intelligence to understand this.  John McCain's ignorance, arrogance, and anger result in a utter incompetence in foreign policy.  In particular, they make him weak on Afghanistan.  The surge stretched our military to the breaking point and now our troops in Afghanistan are paying the price.

The mainstream media's infatuation with John McCain has officially become a clear and present danger to America's vital interests in the Middle East.  For CBS to cover for McCain on such an egregious lie is beyond the pale for journalism, and further proof that corporate control of media is a threat to American democracy.

With his penchant for "gaffes" McCain has provided the supporting evidence.  He doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, he thinks that Iran is training al Qaeda.  He believes that Iraq and Pakistan share a border.  The guy thinks that Purim is equivalent to Jewish Halloween.  Indeed, these can no longer be taken individually as "gaffes", but it is time to clearly connect the dots and conclude that John McCain is incapable of the understanding necessary for leadership.  McCain fails the Commander-in-Chief test.

History has decided.  America has decided.  The war in Iraq ended in victory long ago, and it is time for America to begin the end of our long occupation so that we can focus on the growing and urgent threat in Afghanistan.

Barack Obama has the intelligence to understand this.  John McCain's ignorance, arrogance, and anger result in a utter incompetence in foreign policy.  In particular, they make him weak on Afghanistan.  The surge stretched our military to the breaking point and now our troops in Afghanistan are paying the price.


Comments



Somebody tell Joe (Pain - 7/23/2008 12:57:47 PM)

Tell him that we can still see his lips move.


Definition of "Victory" (Teddy - 7/23/2008 4:01:59 PM)
among Republicans has never been openly articulated because it would rip their cover story to shreds. "Victory" in Iraq means: ExxonMobil and major Western oil companies will have achieved an unshakable grip on most of Iraq's oil, and do not have to answer to the Iraqi government for much of anything. Period. All the blather about democracy and the surge succeeding is white noise designed to obscure what is really going on, and has in fact been going on from the beginning of the Bush administration.

Is security now improved in Iraq? By and large, Yes. How long-lived the current reduction in violence may be is questionable, but we should be pleased with it so far. I predict the reduction in overt violence will last until the American subsidies to those Sunni tribal warloads run out. I do not recall how much the American taxpayer is on the hook for to these warlords, but it is probably over $300,000 a month, not to mention our donation of other bribes, like modern arms and ammunition. Odd, no one mentions these facts.

My question is, how coincidental are the bribery payments with the reduction in violence, and how much is due solely to the troop surge by Americans? Personally, I suspect, as always, Might Makes Right, but that surge without bribery would not have worked so well, nor bribery without the comforting assurance of American military support ready to hand to protect tribal leaders. When the bribery money runs out, then what? Appeals to Congress to fund more of the same, in a never-ending cycle? Are we so obsessed with saving face by turning Iraq into a client state gushing oil into our war machine and our SUVs, that we ignore how things are deteriorating in Aghanistan? What if it is time to transfer the Surge to Afghanistan but, alas! Afghanistan has no oil, therefore the Bush-McSame petro-administration refuses to do so?



Afghanistan (South County - 7/23/2008 9:07:46 PM)
In Afghanistan, you've got a major problem with likely the most difficult terrain on earth, and vast ungoverned spaces.  The Government of Afghanistan has a presence in populated areas (the few), but has little control of the rural areas (the many).  Meanwhile, Pakistan has no control over the area (including the Federally Administered Tribal Areas) on their side of the border.  This is a recipe for trouble.  It allows the Taliban and Al Qaeda to cross into Afghanistan, launch attacks and terrorize the local populace, then slip back across into Pakistan or to mountain hideouts.  In order to increase forces in Afg we need to draw down forces in Iraq.  There can't be two surges, there's just not enough brigades to go around.


Historical parallel (Teddy - 7/24/2008 5:59:56 PM)
exists for "sanctuary" areas: that is, Macedonia and Bulgaria during the Communist "insurgency" in Greece post-World War II, and Cambodia for Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, among others. Following the enemy under the doctrine of "hot pursuit" did not always work, since doing so might trigger retaliation and other complications from the sanctuary state, or the sponsor (such as Soviet Russia in the first case, and China in the second). So it goes.