The differences between how John McCain or Barack Obama as Commander in Chief would handle the war in Iraq are quite clear. Both say they want to draw down forces in Iraq and increase forces in Afghanistan, but how and when reveals their stark differences in approach.
Michael Gordon, New York Times correspondent in Iraq, interviewed both candidates on their plans as Commander-in-Chief of the Iraq war.
They ... provided telling clues about how much flexibility the next commander in chief would grant to his generals, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former top American general in Iraq who has been named to lead the Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama, who noted that General Petraeus wanted “maximum flexibility” in setting withdrawal schedules, said he “pushed back” when he met with the commander in July by making the case for sending more forces to Afghanistan, which the Democratic candidate views as the main battleground against terrorists.
Mr. McCain, who argued that a favorable outcome in Iraq is vital for American strategy in the Middle East and its overall efforts against terrorists, repeatedly invoked General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy and said he would be inclined to give General Petraeus considerable latitude in setting force levels in Iraq.
So Obama says he "pushed back" during his sole meeting with Gen. Petraeus, when the architect and leader of the successful surge that turned the war from defeat into victory asked for "maximum flexibility." Translation: Obama told Petraeus "It's my way or the highway."
McCain, a decorated war hero and Naval air wing commander, says he will give General Petraeus "considerable latitude" to finish victory.
At the heart of the dispute is Mr. Obama’s 16-month schedule for withdrawing American combat brigades, a timetable that is about twice as fast as that provided for in a draft American and Iraqi accord. Would that deadline spur the Iraqis to overcome their political differences and enable the United States to stabilize Iraq at far lower troop levels, as Mr. Obama asserts?
Or would it tie the hands of commanders and undermine political progress when the security gains in Iraq are still fragile, as Mr. McCain contends? How would Mr. McCain try to promote political progress and better governance in Iraq, when he insists that circumstances on the ground, not the calendar, should determine the pace of reductions?
“The danger with Obama’s rigid timetable is that it may not allow U.S. commanders to react to events on the ground,” said Toby Dodge, a specialist on Iraq at the University of London and a former adviser to General Petraeus.
Obama, who has zero military experience and zero executive experience, tells Gen. Petraeus the troops are leaving in 16 months. Period.
Mr. McCain has argued that reductions should be determined by political and military circumstances, a stance taken by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told reporters in June that he favored a “conditions-based approach” that would allow the United States to continuously assess and adjust to events on the ground.
Obama "military strategy" is that an American withdrawal of troops will "force" the Iraqi government to take political actions he demands.
In addition to using troop withdrawals to try to encourage change, Mr. Obama said he would end efforts to train the Iraqi military if Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government did not take adequate steps to integrate the largely Sunni members of the Awakening movements into Iraq’s security forces.
While McCain points to progress already made militarily and politically by Iraqis has been in response to our troops winning on the ground.
By contrast, Mr. McCain argued that the improved security had finally given the Iraqis the confidence to move forward politically and economically, improving their working relationship with the American military and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador in Baghdad. Threats to cut off American training or deadlines for removing combat brigades, he argued, would only prompt Iraq to become more dependent on Iran or turn to militias for security.
“For a long time, people have said threaten them with this, threaten them with that,” Mr. McCain said. “Instead, Petraeus, Crocker and others established a relationship with the Iraqi government so that they did do de-Baathification, they did do an amnesty, they passed a budget. The United States government hasn’t passed a budget.”
Democrats in charge of Congress haven't passed a budget in peaceful America, while Iraqis have done so in the middle of a war. So which government is dragging it's feet and which one is moving along faster? Iraqis have put Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's Congress to shame.
And a crying shame is what it would be if the next Commander-in-Chief makes our troops cut and run from a hard-fought victory in Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment