I was ecstatic when Palin repeated McCain's subtle gaffe from the first debate, and I'm hoping that this will be coming a little more in the forefront in the MSM. Calling him "McClellan" - a very obvious gaffe that just brings more attention to it- Mrs. Palin talked about how general McKiernan said 'just today' how he supported the use of 'the surge principles' in Afghanistan. Palin's quote also sheds light on the flaw itself:
We have NATO allies helping us for one and even the geographic differences are huge but the counterinsurgency principles could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn't say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan, clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure can work in Afghanistan. And those leaders who are over there, who have also been advising George Bush on this have not said anything different but that.
She's colluding the number of troops with a strategy. McKiernan's statement:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
It's something that McCain himself contradicted himself on in the first debate.
(SEE excerpt from my earlier post below- "Petraeus the Great?").
Biden wasn't perfect in his verbiage, and I'm surprised I haven't heard the 'contradiction' with Obama:
The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge -- the surge principles used in Iraq will not -- well, let me say this again now -- our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan.
(Taken from http://elections.nytimes.com/...
So the obvious Republican spin is: Obama wants a surge of troops in Afghanistan and Biden says the surge principles will not work. The obvious parsing makes it clear: An increase in the amount of troops is not the same as using the "clear and hold" strategy that, In Iraq, comes along with the surge.
Please talk about this issue. The talking point issued twice in two debates, shows how strongly they feel about it, and it should scare every one; McCain not only wants to keep up the surge in Iraq, he wants to export the "CLEAR AND HOLD" strategy to Afghanistan. The media has already backed the "surge is working/ has worked" idea, they may seem willing to not separate the collusion that they're trying to pull off. Anyone with any basic common sense (which somehow includes McCain for a brief moment) realizes that this TACTIC is imossible in Afghanistan. So just think about why? WHY? McCain doesn't want to win a war or two wars, he wants to stretch BOTH wars as long as possible.
The only war strategy that non-peacenik, Non-Kucinichish, democrats support in Afghanistan is basically, get Bin Laden and leave. Obama takes this stance because it's politically necessary, and as a 2-time Nader voter, and at-the-time-already-dropped-out-Kucinich voter its one that I can swallow. Please don't let the idea that "McCain and Obama agree that more troops are needed in Afghanistan" be the end all and be all of the issue.
From "Petraeus the great?"
This next gaffe takes adding 2 +2 but he actually says it twice, and I think it was the biggest misstatement of the night.
Speaking about Iraq McCain says this:
An election law just in the last few days. There is social, economic progress, and a strategy, a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the country then become allied with you. They inform on the bad guys. And peace comes to the country, and prosperity....It was a stratagem. And that same strategy will be employed in Afghanistan by this great general.
Right after this was the "cutting off funding for our troops nonesense" that Obama handled perfectly, but i'm sure distracted most people from my point.
McCain said just a bit earlier in the night:
Now, the new president of Pakistan, Kardari (sic), has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.....
I've been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It's ruled by a handful of tribes.
And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.
So let me wrap this one up for ya: Petraeus is so amazing and the clear and hold TACTIC is working so perfectly in Iraq (along with bribing the Sunnis for cooperation), that the US is going to clear and hold an area that has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great? An area where $25 million, boosted to $50 million is not enough of a bounty to get Bin Laden and which no amount of money would be enough? We're going to go in and win hearts and minds? "going into an area, clearing and holding and the people of the country then become allied with you." Osama's bin Laden's largest reasoning for attacking the United States was American presence in Muslim lands, so we're gonna clear and hold there? Sounds like extending and expanding the war. The view from the left is Afghanistan should be a criminal justice operation not a military operation. McCain and Obama agree on more troops in afghanistan, hopefully Obama's strategy in Afghanistan would be more troops in; finish the job quickly. Looks like McCain's strategy is taking over the world.
So the people who can govern in this area are Alexander the Great and Petraeus the Great!
McCain falls into the trap of letting praise for the troops overshadow strategy.
He praises the troops, the commanders, et al, and their ability to accomplish anything, and keep up the hard fights they are given. The hardness of the fight is supposed to portray the strength of said troops. Sadly though McCain leads us to the conclusion that a lack of judgement or analysis doesn't matter - our troops will git'er done no matter what unthought out idea he presents them with.