< Back to Front Page Text size +

Obama: Afghanistan, not Iraq, should be focus

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor July 15, 2008 02:54 PM

Barack Obama and John McCain today offered diametrically opposite views of the war in Iraq, even as both called for sending thousands more US troops to Afghanistan.

Democrat Obama declared that the failed policy in Iraq -- which he argued was never the central front in the war on terror -- has distracted attention from the growing terrorist threat in Afghanistan and proves the need to withdraw from Iraq. "If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned," he said in a speech in Washington. "And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan."

But Republican McCain answered that the success of the troop surge in Iraq now allows the US military to increase forces in Afghanistan. "Senator Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards," McCain declared in a speech in Albuquerque, N.M. "It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge -- which Senator Obama opposed -- that we will win in Afghanistan."

In what is being billed as a major policy speech, Obama declared this morning that if elected president, he would redirect attention and US forces to Afghanistan.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," he said. "Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia."

That strategic imbalance, Obama argues, is the result of a misguided policy in Iraq that he would end by withdrawing nearly all US combat troops within 16 months of taking office -- and that would only continue under his Republican rival John McCain, a key supporter of the so-called surge of US troops that even Obama has grudgingly conceded has helped reduce violence.

"What’s missing in our debate about Iraq -- what has been missing since before the war began – is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy," Obama said. "This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe."

"As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy -- one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin," he continued. "I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Obama is scheduled to follow up his speech with appearances on PBS and CNN this evening. He is also scheduled to soon visit Iraq and Afghanistan for the first time since January 2006.

While Obama called for sending two more brigades to Afghanistan, McCain called for sending three.

"Although the situation in Iraq is much improved, another test awaits whoever wins this election: the war in Afghanistan," McCain said. "The status quo is not acceptable. Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive. From the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan.
"With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan," McCain continued. "I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory."

McCain, who says a withdrawal from Iraq now would amount to surrender, argued that he -- not Obama -- was right about Iraq.

"Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy -- a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.

"Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America's enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home."

McCain also criticized Obama for outlining his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before actually visiting the war-torn countries.

"Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," McCain plans to say, according to excerpts released by his campaign. "And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."

McCain is trying to press his advantage among voters on terror and national security -- the only issues, in fact, that polls show Americans have more confidence in McCain. A Washington Post-ABC News poll published today shows that 72 percent of Americans say McCain would make a good commander-in-chief, while only 48 percent said Obama would and 48 percent said he would not.

On the specific question of Iraq, however, the survey found that Americans are evenly divided on Obama's timetable for withdrawal and McCain's position that events on the ground should decide the next moves. And Americans are also split on which candidate they trust more to handle Iraq.

UPDATE: A new New York Times/CBS News poll offers mixed results for the candidates on Iraq.

While 45 percent of Americans say efforts to stabilize Iraq are going well, up 20 percentage points from a year ago, about 60 percent say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place, according to the poll, released online today.

Nearly 8 in 10 in the poll said McCain would generally continue the president’s policies in Iraq, which are generally unpopular.

While McCain pushed for the surge and a different strategy against the insurgency later in the war, Democrats are trying to tie McCain to his support of President Bush earlier in the conflict, hoping to dent his advantage on nationa security.


In a new web video released today, the Democratic National Committee accuses McCain of trying to rewrite history. The video juxtaposes a top McCain adviser saying on a weekend political talk show that it would be wrong to say that McCain was aligned with the president on Iraq with clips of McCain on several TV shows enthusiastically backing the Bush administration.

Asked about Obama's speech, President Bush told reporters today that the war on terror is being fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- and that Iraq is going better now.

"Afghanistan is a tough fight," Bush said at a White House press conference.

While there has not been a terrorist attack in the US since Sept. 11, 2001, the US cannot allow safe haven for terrorists, he said. "I would hope that whoever follows me understands that we're in a war."

Obama also released a new TV ad today that highlights one facet of his speech -- his bipartisan work on stopping the smuggling of nuclear weapons.


His campaign said the ad is to air in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

11 comments so far...
  1. (Interesting: we have an Obama speech clip, a DNC clip and an Obama campaign ad. Is there bias at Boston.com?)

    After reading Obama's opinion piece in The Times and today’s speech, there are still lingering questions to a very vague policy articulation:

    We are going to maintain American service members in Iraq to protect American service members in Iraq? What are we protecting them from?

    What is the strategic interest in Central Asia? Clearly, Iraq is a strategic interest in the Middle East. Iraq is rich in resources and central in the Arab World.

    Is he planning to invade Northwest Pakistan? If so, what are we going to do for supply lines for Afghanistan when Pakistan cuts off roadways and rail to US supplies? Don't forget their nukes in the closet. We'd lose 30,000 soldiers in a day. How many soldiers is he prepared to lose going cave to cave?

    Does he truly believe that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are stronger today than October 5, 2001? Why does he continue to say that Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan? They are hiding in Pakistan sending the Taliban as their proxies to die for Allah.

    Whose word carries more weight for him: al- Maliki or General Petraeus (a name not mentioned in his Times piece)?

    What is his plan if Iraq devolves into another Lebanon? Is he prepared for Iran's destabilization plan?

    Obama is a very likable candidate on the surface. But he is dangerously wrong on this one. A full scale ground offensive along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border will make Iraq look like a Romper Room episode.

    Let's have this debate he calls for in his letter. Is it possible to have it with a degree of reason and without the perpetual claim of victimhood by the Democratic candidate? Obama has, in fact, flip flopped and opened a bigger can of worms than he can now close.

    What is he prepared to do in Afghanistan? What is Commander in Chief Obama going to accomplish in the region where The British, Soviet Union and Alexander The Great all failed?

    Posted by Grego July 15, 08 02:23 PM
  1. Grego

    Step one. Place hands on neck.
    Step two. Pull hard.
    Step three. Check in mirror to make sure your head is successfully removed from your rear end.

    How conveniently we can forget basic facts when we choose to. Why should we remain in Iraq when every level-headed person agrees that we shouldn't have been there to begin with. So you're saying we should stay because we're there?

    The boogeyman that "terrorists" are made up to be, and the perceived existential risk to the US that they pose, is almost laughable. Should we really be invading countries and giving away our civil liberties because of these people? Are they a bigger threat now than the Soviets were then? Talk about the need to have sane debate.

    Posted by dbb July 15, 08 03:26 PM
  1. If this week's sneak attack on a US Millitary outpost in Afganistan isnt a wake up call that we are focusing too much attention in the wrong direction, I dont know what is.

    How anyone can say we are winning the war - when things like this are happening, and the tension on the Afgan / Pakastani border is growing worse everyday is beyond me.

    We cant just cut and run from Iraq, but that isnt what Obama is proposing. He is proposing a strategically sound draw down - so we can focus on the real front.

    the rest tthey need

    Posted by Pat M July 15, 08 03:53 PM
  1. Grego - the strategic interest for the United States in the region of Central Asia is three-fold. First, we seek to wipe out the remaining al Qaeda leaders who are hiding in Pakistan and were responsible for the events of 09/11/2001. Second, we seek to stabilize the government in Pakistan. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal must be secure, and no rogue element can be allowed to destablize the region by gaining access to those weapons. Third, we must destroy the remaining Taliban elements that have reestablished themselves in portions of rural Afghanistan. We cannot allow the progress of the last seven years to be undermined by this radical Islamic sect that holds interests directly opposed to the West. Sen. Obama has not proposed following the lead of the Soviets or the U.K., and invading Afghanistan with a massive presence. No one has advocated such action. I will agree with you that Iraq is now a strategic interest of the United States, but only by virtue of the misguided invasion of that country under false pretenses delivered by Pres. Bush. Unless the United States does not recognize the sovereignty of the government it established in Iraq, Maliki's word on the subject of our presence in his country should carry more word that Gen. Petraeus. Otherwise, we are nothing more than occupiers, and no better than the Soviets, Germans, or Japanese when they invaded sovereign states and stayed there when they were not welcome. If you are saying we should stay in Iraq for cheap oil, you are truly a fool. Iraq is a sovereign nation, and will only sell oil to us at the market price. Any other arrangement constitutes colonial imperialism imposed by military force. Is that what you want for America in the 21st Century? The United States should responsibly reduce its number of troops in Iraq over a period of 1-2 years, reassign 25% of the troops now there to permanent bases in other countries within the region to address any crises that may flare up, and allow the Iraqis to govern themselves. As for Iran, I'm quite sure that the 1,200 years of discord between the Shite and Sunni factions will keep Iran contained in that region; Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, & Egypt have no interest in seeing Iran play a larger role. This will be an interesting debate.

    Posted by chowdaman July 15, 08 04:23 PM
  1. well dbb, you seem to have the procedure for moving things in and out of your heiney well articulated. The next two paragraphs are all over the map. When are you done with summer school?

    Posted by Grego July 15, 08 04:24 PM
  1. Hello, Boston.com producer here -- in response to the allegations of bias, I want to note that we have not yet received clips of McCain's speech from our video provider. We simply don't have the content, we're not trying to favor one side over the other.

    Posted by Boston.com July 15, 08 05:27 PM
  1. Finally, I've heard a leader articulate specifically the stupiditiy of our decision to invade Iraq, while failing to retaliate swiftly and appropriately against Afghanistan and publically recognize the wasted opportunity that we had after 911 to unite the world against terrorism. The World cared about America and mourned our loss.
    We could have been so much better off if this criminal of a president and his administration had acted as good world citizens. Barrack Obama was my candidate before, now he is my President.

    Posted by CDD July 15, 08 05:36 PM
  1. Why is Obama stating a strategy for Iraq before his trip to the area, and before he consults with the commanders on the ground? Obama says we should shift our attention to Afghanistan, but why hasn't he even voted on the committee for Afghanistan, the committee which he supposedly chaired for the past year? It sounds to me like Obama is simply playing politics with his statements, rather than offering a policy which is based on reality ... and a policy which would actually work. Let's keep America safe and secure, by electing Senator John McCain in November.

    Posted by Lee July 15, 08 07:32 PM
  1. What I read of Obama's plan on Iraq/ Afganistan sounds like a real, workable plan that honors the wishes of Iraq. Actually, much more of a plan than 'stay the course' with a only a 'make it up as we go along approach' costing more lives than on 9/11 and billions of dollars a week.

    Posted by Uncle Bob July 15, 08 07:33 PM
  1. Finally, I've heard a leader articulate specifically the stupiditiy of our decision to invade Iraq, while failing to retaliate swiftly and appropriately against Afghanistan and publically recognize the wasted opportunity that we had after 911 to unite the world against terrorism. The World cared about America and mourned our loss.
    We could have been so much better off if this criminal of a president and his administration had acted as good world citizens. Barrack Obama was my candidate before, now he is my President.

    Posted by CDD July 15, 08 09:56 PM
  1. Thanks for the clarification .com producer...understood and appreciated..My concern is simple (as one who has never supported the invasion of Iraq): The Gentleman Chowdaman outlines the Senator's intention to invade Pakistan,..but at what consequence? We'll need far more than 4,000 body bags.

    THINK! Terrain, supply lines, landing strips...Iraq was a weekend at Club Med relative to northwest Pakistan... Politely, Obama's plan is horrific...and I am no fool...

    Posted by Grego July 16, 08 12:01 AM
add your comment
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

About political intelligence Field reports from Boston Globe reporters and editors covering the 2008 presidential campaign and the national maneuvering of Bay State politicians.

Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com

archives

browse this blog

by category