BY TAYLOR MARSH
John McCain and the Republicans have been pummeling Barack Obama over his upcoming trip to Iraq (and Afghanistan), but particularly about his strategy to redeploy troops. When Obama gave his speech this week, which was accompanied by his op-ed, the caterwauling was deafening. How can Barack Obama make up his mind before he talks to the generals in Iraq? Maybe the same way Democrats from Biden to Clinton to Obama deduced that Afghanistan was unwinding. Watching other countries spin out of control doesn’t take generals to tell you what’s happening, though it’s clear that George W. Bush has ignored Afghanistan for so long and had no intention of doing anything that someone had to step in. Ideally, you want a commander in chief who realizes hot spots are getting hotter before our military leaders start screaming blood murder that they’re in trouble. The same goes for presidential candidates.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently returned from meetings with commanders in Afghanistan, said they clearly want more troops now.
“It’s a tougher fight, it’s a more complex fight, and they need more troops to have the long-term impact that we all want to have there,” said Mullen, who also met last week with Pakistani leaders.
The Pentagon has been wrestling with how to provide what they say is a much needed military buildup in Afghanistan, while they still have 150,000 troops in Iraq. Gates and Mullen have repeatedly said they would have to reduce troop levels in Iraq before they could dedicate more forces to Afghanistan.
It wasn’t until Barack Obama started pounding on Afghanistan recently that John McCain got in the game. So, obviously, frequent flier miles isn’t all that.
What Democrats get that Republicans don’t is that you can’t operate U.S. national security one situational challenge at a time. Civilians set military strategy and overall national security goals, but those civilians need to be aware of what’s brewing beyond what’s under their noses. Republicans have a very simplistic idea about national security: bad guy and good guys; punish them or reward them; one crisis at a time. It makes their argument easier to sell, but it doesn’t make it smarter, better or safer. Democrats think on multiple tracks that include diplomacy, military deployment, engagement, but also appreciate that not everything is black and white when dealing with 21st century threats, while understanding things roll across regions, especially when a country like Iraq has been unstable so long, without political reconciliation.
George W. Bush and John McCain both still think in 20th century military ways. Democrats get the larger map, but have a difficult time selling it, because of the layered manner in which we see foreign policy. Again, the Republican strategy is simple to sell. But in the process we end up with Bush or people like McCain who don’t think in a broad enough context, so while they’re trying to “win” in Iraq, another problem spot has exploded and by the time they’ve turned their attention to it only drastic measures will work. Thus you have last minute efforts to include Afghanistan all of a sudden from McCain, because he hadn’t thought much beyond “winning” in Iraq. Again, the Republicans strategy is plodding, one step at a time. Today, we just don’t have the time.
It’s up to the civilian commander in chief to keep the larger strategic goals of the United States always in mind, taking the larger map of challenges into consideration. Obviously, listening to the military generals and civilian leaders in the fight is critically important, but it’s the commander in chief who sets national security policy. That is unless he, in this case, doesn’t get the larger complications we’re facing and turns belatedly to a problem spot after things have already gotten out of control. Then the military is left to pick up the pieces because the boss blew it.
So, consider this an early morning foreign policy news thread. What are you reading out there? Link’ em if you’ve got ‘em. Otherwise, what else is in the news?
Comments are closed.