McCain: He talks about Afghanistan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/strategy_for_victory_in_afghan.html

This speech somehow got reported as an Iraq speech. This speech was far more about Afghanistan and something he should frankly talk more about. As valid and accurate a point as it is that Sen. Barack Obama got it wrong as to what the surge would do, McCain could stand solely on his plan for Afghanistan just as well as Obama is trying to do. He showed he understands the importance of dealing with the drug trade which could single handily ruin any and all chances of succeeding there. He showed he understands that it must be a political as well as military effort with a greater focus on support from its surrounding countries, arguably unlike what we saw in Iraq. He did however mention a few too many times that the same approach we took in Iraq must be applied to Afghanistan while only hinting once that differences between the two would have to be accounted for. Afghanistan is a different monster. Similar tactics are needed but about where it stops is simply that we need more troops. The tribes, the drugs, the terrorist’s safe havens, and especially the terrain are very different. Arguably the biggest difference though is the much longer held connection between the terrorists and local citizens. Terrorists have won elections on the premise of being better than the endless violence, of even representing change. The local citizens trust and have affection for these terrorists more so than the Iraqi citizens ever did. It shouldn't be forgotten or neglected that even Russia, at debatably the height of its power could not win in Afghanistan. So to talk as if the same tactics can be applied in virtually any fashion in order to get the same results is disingenuous when the realities Afghanistan presents aren't the same as Iraq. Before we invaded it wasn't a stable government by most stretches of imagination. Even if one doesn't agree with how Iraq was run it was stable.

Sen. McCain is right that partly because of the surge we'll have the troops to send to Afghanistan. Now right or wrong, yes President Bush chose Iraq as the more important war to win-with McCain’s support-first which created the situation where more, enough, US troops could not be sent into Afghanistan. As Al-Qaeda is growing stronger there, it is very fortunate the coalition forces were increased greatly. As more allied help is needed it should not be ignored that they have greatly stepped up in the past year and half, France being one our key allies most recently.

Senator McCain didn't talk about the fact that although two to three more brigades minimum has been asked for it will take much more to end Afghanistan, quickly or otherwise. Pakistan is the key component in dealing with the southern part of Afghanistan but he gave no hint as to how he'd get them to help more than the current administration has. McCain didn't mention that one idea which has been discussed is for our ally countries that are sticking to strictly a training role in Afghanistan, how they could be re-deployed to Iraq to train there which would allow more US troops to re-deploy into Afghanistan, troops that could be put on the front line. A key point he made is that Afghanistan’s army has to be increased, just like what we saw in Iraq when Iraqi’s surged with us.

What's interesting here is that Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama really don't have many; some have said no differences in Afghanistan policy. Both agree command needs to be better unified, both want to put more US troops in (even if McCain took longer to come to this), both admit needing to deal with the drug trade, and both are calling for more allied help with a great deal of political progress from the Afghanistan government/people.

Edited 7/26