Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
speaks at the National Council of La Raza convention at San Diego's
Convention Center July 14, 2008. REUTERS/Fred Greaves
Posted on 07/15/2008 10:33:07 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (Reuters) - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain sharply criticized the flagging U.S. war effort in Afghanistan on Tuesday and vowed to turn it around if elected, starting with sending more U.S. troops.
"That's no way to run a war," said McCain, complaining that security in Afghanistan has deteriorated and the status quo is not acceptable.
McCain waded into the debate over what to do in Afghanistan, a war begun after the September 11 attacks that Democrats charge has been neglected by the Bush administration as it concentrates on Iraq.
An attack on a U.S. base near the Pakistan border by a resurgent Taliban on Sunday killed nine U.S. soldiers and wounded 15, the biggest single American loss in Afghanistan since 2005.
McCain, an Arizona senator who calls himself an underdog in his November 4 election battle against Democrat Barack Obama, said an improving security situation in Iraq as a result of a U.S. troop increase, or "surge," should allow the United States to send more forces to Afghanistan.
U.S. commanders in Afghanistan say they need at least three additional brigades of about 3,500 troops each, and McCain said they should get them. There are currently 36,000 American troops stationed in Afghanistan.
--snip--
McCain, a strong supporter of the war in Iraq after earlier criticizing the Bush administration's handling of it, said the United States lacks a comprehensive campaign plan for Afghanistan "because we have violated one of the cardinal rules of any military operation: unity of command."
"Today there are no less than three different American military combatant commands operating in Afghanistan, as well as NATO, some of whose members have national restrictions on where their troops can go and what they can do. That's no way to run a war," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
speaks at the National Council of La Raza convention at San Diego's
Convention Center July 14, 2008. REUTERS/Fred Greaves
What does a La Raza speech have to do with Afghanistan?
McCain, STFU. You have no clue what it going on in Afghanistan, apparently.
So, again, Juan, how do you intend to capture Bin Laden in Pakistan without violating international borders and starting a war with our tenuous ally?
I think a surge started occurring some time ago and is continuing.
He needs 10,000 for Afghanistan. Twice that number are ready to be transferred from Iraq to someplace. No need to wait until next January.
I want to get some input from fellow/current military who are familiar with Afghanistan, because I have a few questions. Anybody feel free to jump in and answer.
1. The situation in Afghanistan seems quite different than in Iraq. In Iraq we increased the level of troops to help reduce the violence, smoke out Al Qaeda, and restore order to the country. That has obviously worked. As I’ve stated a few times recently, there have been more murders in Chicago in 2008 than in Iraq. In Afghanistan, I don’t know that the mission has been to restore order. I’ve seen it as more of an attempt to provide enough troops on the ground to effectively engage small pockets of enemies, establish relationships with the local tribal leaders, and to re-establish our HUMINT, which had been completely destroyed prior to 9-11. Would an increased amount of troops help accomplish that goal (if it’s what I stated it is)?
2. Is the military willing to massively engage AQ in the mountains, or are they leaving the most risky activities to the locals? In other words are they locals better prepared to engage the enemy within the mountains and border areas with Pakistan?
3. Is the reason we have not deployed more of a force there because of the lessons learned by the Soviets? Obama argues that we haven’t had enough troops there because of Iraq. However, military plans were executed in Afghanistan long before Iraq was in play. We had enough troops to send then, but didn’t. I guess my take on it is like the analogy using the entire USAF over in Afghanistan. You can only bomb so much. Everything else will have to be located by surveillance, HUMINT, and Forward Air Controllers on the ground. Can that be effectively executed with more troops, or is a limited presence there the key...in other words, letting the snoops do the job. Blend in, gather intelligence, and go from there.
Thanks to all who respond.
What does a La Raza speech have to do with Afghanistan?
—
It was the pic shown with the article at that time.
It has since changed.
You apparently have no problem with the source of the McCain quote nor the context from which Rueters may have taken it?
I have a very deep understanding of John McCain from much research on the man. Do you?
The "no way to run a war" comment was made in regard to NATO having a chain of command independent of US forces.
I need to clarify that statement. I meant to say more murders than military deaths in Iraq in 2008.
‘No way to run a war’ that has been stacking up taliban like cordwood?
McCain has been to the war zones several times, unlike
Obama and the third party candidates.
McCain’s 19yr old son is based here in San Diego in the Marines and has served a tour in Iraq and will be heading
back to Iraq or Afag.
Another son will be a grad at the Naval Academy in months.
McCain has more of a clue than most what is going on in the Middle east.
Bush has already begun the "surge" into Afghanistan
But hey, what's another backstabbing on Bush by McCain?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.