Obama/Mullen v. McCain/Petraeus

Here is what Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff and certainly no left-winger, said with respect to the dilemma with troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq recently.

"What I said in my statement is also important as a part of that calculus, which is, I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq...unlike the insurgency in Iraq, we don't have enough troops there to hold." http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/mull en-cant-have-more-troops-in-afghanistan- until-i-have-a-reduced-requirement-in-ir aq/

"In the last six or seven months, we have a put a tremendous amount of focus on Afghanistan, and I think rightfully so. It is an economy-of-force campaign, and by definition, that means we don't have enough forces there...I am constrained on forces I can generate quite frankly because of Iraq. Afghanistan is a significant challenge and is going to take a significant period of time." http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/30/mcca in-afghanistan-iraq/

Admiral Mullen sounds closer to Obama than he does to General Petreus or McCain on the issue of troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.  McCain has dismissed arguments in favor of reducing the troop presence in Iraq to deal with the threat by arguing that Afghanistan and Iraq are not an either/or proposition.

With violence increasing in Afghanistan (it has increased the last four months) and the Taliban getting as strong as it has been in the last seven years, isn't it time for McCain and Petraeus to "refine" their positions with respect to Afghanistan?  Did McCain visit Afghanistan in his last sojourn to the Middle East?  

How does Petraeus get around Crocker's admission to Joe Biden that it would be better for US interests to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan than Al Qaeda in Iraq if he has no way of getting more troops to that region without redeploying troops from Iraq?

Obama should talk more about the increasing threat that is Afghanistan; I wonder if Obama will be stressing Afghanistan more once he talks to the commanders on the ground there.



Display:


If this topic is of no interest (none / 0)

then let's debate who Obama takes overseas with him?  I think he should take one Republican whose views on foreign policy are closer to his than they are to McCain (e.g. Lugar and Hagel)and take a really, really boring Dem so that attention doesn't get taken away from him, so no Hillary or Biden for this trip.  I'd take a nondescript guy like Jack Reed though it would be pretty funny if he brought Boxer.


by Blazers Edge on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST

Re: If this topic is of no interest (none / 0)

I like all those ideas. Hagel, Biden, Reed would be fantastic.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If this topic is of no interest (none / 0)

Seeing those names together made me wish Biden had won so we might have had Bagel 08!


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even better: (2.00 / 1)

they could have based their platform on solving the Middle East crisis by merging Syria and Israel into a single country.

Then we would have Bagel '08 advocating for Syrial.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:48:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even better: (2.00 / 1)

Throw in Kofi Annan and you've got a pretty damn good breakfast there!


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:22:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If this topic is of no interest (none / 0)

I would not take Biden just because the guy has a tendency to like the sound of his own voice and may want to do a lot of talking; the trip has to make Obama stand out on his own and as someone the American people can see talking to our commanders and foreign leaders.

I want him to take a Republican to push the bipartisan storyline.  I know he's good friends with Lugar given their work on nuclear weapons, so I would prefer Lugar over Hagel because Hagel may just distract media attention from what Obama is trying to accomplish.

Under no circumstances should Hagel be chosen as VP though; that would be a betrayal.


by Blazers Edge on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If this topic is of no interest (none / 0)

Yup. Hagel is a nightmare domestically. Obama (i hope) understands that he can't win Virginia if it means losing California.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:20:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Mullen v. McCain/Petraeus (none / 0)

I don't even have a problem with Petraeus. He's done a good job and seems to be a smart guy. If John Kerry had been elected in 2004, he might have been put in there even earlier.

He is, however, a soldier who must fulfill his commander's ambitions. Bush will NEVER take more than a few brigades out of Iraq no matter what. I wouldn't want anyone else in charge of pulling out of Iraq.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:27:20 PM EST

Re: Obama/Mullen v. McCain/Petraeus (none / 0)

But yeah, back to the point... If we turn this into a question of where the danger lies, then we win hands down. If we turn it into a question of how we can afford it, we win hands down. If we turn it into a question of military capability and reserve, we win hands down. The only way we lose is if we continue to let the Republicans keep saying that Iraq is still an active battlefront in the war on terror. It is not.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.