Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

McCain Shifts Position on More US Troops to Afghanistan

July 15, 2008 5:20 PM

While Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was seeming defensive on Iraq today, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was changing his position on Afghanistan.

Just last week, McCain was calling for the U.S.'s NATO allies to increase their troop presence in Afghanistan and was resisting calls for more U.S. troops there. “I would like to have our allies make a bigger commitment, both in personnel and other ways,” McCain said in Portsmouth, Ohio. “I’d like to hear from our military leaders, our chairman of the joint chiefs, as well as the military commanders there.”

McCain foreign policy aide Randy Scheunemann told the Boston Globe that there needed to be more NATO troops, and "there is no easy answer, but clearly Pakistan needs to do more to crack down there."

This was quite a contrast from Obama, who since August 2007 has been calling for at least two additional U.S. brigades in Afghanistan.

A contrast, that is…until today.

"Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades," McCain said today at a town hall in Albuquerque. "Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them."

During a trip to Afghanistan in 2006, McCain resisted such a call, saying when asked if more US troops were needed, "If it's necessary, we will, and I'm sure we would be agreeable, but the focus here is more on training the Afghan National Army and the police, as opposed to the increased U.S. troop presence."

Speaking to reporters on his bus today after his speech, McCain rejected the notion that he and Obama have similar plans for the region.

"He's just said we need more troops," McCain said. "There is a dramatic difference. He's never been to Afghanistan, he's never been briefed on Afghanistan personally by the commanders." Moreover, McCain asserted, Obama doesn't see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as connected, as does McCain.

"If we fail in Iraq, it would have meant enormous encouragement to the Taliban in Afghanistan and other anti-American elements and jihadists throughout the region," McCain said. "And so to say, we could have let Iraq fail, as Senator Obama said,...that would have had a devastating effect in my view on our reliability in the region, that the willingness of our allies to cooperate with us in Afghanistan, and so they are connected. In life and warfare, failure breeds failure, success breeds success. That is just a lesson of history, and Senator Obama obviously does not understand those lessons."

McCain also repeated a charge first made by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, against Obama -- that he chairs a Foreign Affairs subcommittee with oversight over NATO operations and yet "he's never had a hearing. He's never had a hearing. So I am not surprised that all he has done is said, 'Well, we need more troops.'"

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del, rejected that accusation in a statement to ABC News. "The reason Senator Obama didn’t chair a NATO and Afghanistan subcommittee hearing is because I did, as Chairman of the Committee….when it comes to the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, we hold those hearings at the full committee level,” he said.

- jpt

July 15, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (106)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

West coast mess
You need help first of all hillary lost understand that second hillary voted yes to the war in iraq so that should tell where her judgement was during the primaries i never heard hillary speak about afghan the taliban or none of that face it obama has been right all along he has good judgment hes willing to listen to our military that is the kinds of things we need as potus obama 08

Posted by: angie | Jul 17, 2008 12:32:51 AM

Obama's shifts on foreign policy are making me dizzy. I see he scrubbed his criticisms on the surge from his website this weekend. hmmm....

Posted by: rrow | Jul 16, 2008 5:23:06 PM

The only "connection" between Iraq and Afghanistan is the total incompetence by the Bush Regime, including Juan McCain, in running both Wars. Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 or any so called War on Terror. It was supposedly a War of Liberation and to enforce UN Resolutions regarding WMD's, foreign fighters showed up there as Al Qaeda in Iraq because the U.S. Military was there, the insurgents there have every right to fight against any foreign occupation of their country, they are not Terrorists.

Bush keeps saying that's it's better to fight them "over there" instead of here, but does he believe he's punishing Al Qaeda by making their trainees travel to Iraq, while Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda an Talaban leaders have been practically ignored since Bush abandoned his War on Terror for a War For Oil.

It really doesn't matter what either Juan or Barrack plan for Iraq now, the Iraqi's themselves are ready to kick us out and then move forward with becoming a new Iranian State. Hundreds of Billions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars, borrowed from China, and more than 4000 American lives, all spent in aiding Iran.

Posted by: cynik47 | Jul 16, 2008 2:56:05 PM

The major difference between these two on foreign policy are the advisers. While Senator Obama has assembled a team of top notch foreign policy experts with varied backgrounds and affiliations and tends to take their advice into consideration before making a policy statement or a "shift" in policy, as time dictates needed changes; McCain on the other hand, has relied heavily on former Bush advisers, or individuals such as Charlie Black, the lobbyist who has been shuffled from the forefront after stating that "another attack on America would help McCain" and individuals such as former CIA head, James Woolsey, who advised McCain to "bomb Syria". In this respect, McCain's change, (shift, flip-flop, whatever term one wishes to apply), acknowledges the advantage and superiority Senator Obama has over that of his own team. McCain has consistently demonstrated his lack of ability to choose credible individuals for advice, as has been exhibited by the almost weekly exit of the same individuals from his team. This fact has just been reinforced by the exit of his top economic adviser, Phil Gramm. This should be a red flag for anyone.

Posted by: devilkev | Jul 16, 2008 11:17:16 AM

dl made at comment at 8:40 that made a lot of sense. It is worth reading and thinking about.
As for the topic of this article, McCain is following Obama on sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama has been saying more troops were needed there for many months. The troops themselves have been saying the same thing in many news articles that they feel forgotten, that their numbers are too few, leaving them open to attack in many situations and unable to make progress.
What McCain doesn't seem to understand is that is doesn't take prior military experience to lead an army. It takes someone that is intelligent and willing to listen to the troops, the generals, and good old common sense. Obama has proved over and over he has the ability to make the right calls.

Posted by: Lydia | Jul 16, 2008 10:30:27 AM

mccains been out of the senate for every vote this year... hes hte most absent member of congress

hes missed environmental votes Gi bill votes fisa

you name it mccain missed it

oh and then mccain criticized congress for taking a break for july the 4th

lol

yea slackers back to work, oh i dont do weekends

Posted by: bhrandon | Jul 16, 2008 10:16:56 AM

Man it must irk John Sydney McCain III that the so-called naive one has been right on foreign policy issues more often than him the last few weeks. The Iraqis want a timetable (JSM III doesn't), the war commanders want to re-focus on Afghanistan (JSM III just now gets it) and the US and others are talking more to Iran (JSM III just wants to bomb them or kill them with lung cancer). Let's not even mention that John Sydney McCain III keeps referring to a country that hasn't existed for 15 years. Man is this guy serious or what?

Posted by: Tommy Thompson | Jul 16, 2008 9:23:10 AM

Obama chairs a Foreign Affairs committee and never has a hearing--votes present 129 times and has only 143 active days in the Senate.

And we are to believe he has the experience and the backbone to lead this country?

Obama would make a great pastor--but his sermons won't protect our country.

McCain/Hillary

Posted by: riley | Jul 16, 2008 9:14:12 AM

More flip flopping from the double talk express. What's new?

Posted by: Drew Hoffman | Jul 16, 2008 9:08:09 AM

Jake isn't the problem here

the quiet of the surge that they are callinjg a success is built on a playbook we have seen before...

Prop up our enemies to come to our side...giving them weapons, money, promises (that will remain unfulfilled but we don't care)...

this is what we did with the insurgents...

Isn't this what we did with Iran and Afghanistan also?

Isn't this what got us the taliban and al quaeda in the first place...

and nw we have done it with the insurgents in Iraq...and like we did with Iran and Afghanistan we call it a success (to win over the support of the American people and the "temporary win" for political reasons)...and then it comes back to bite us in the a## 10 fold down the road...

am I wrong...do we not need to see that McCain and Bush are taking a bad play out of an old playbook and no one is seeing it?

Isn't that what got us here?

why is no one showing the association and similarities in this tactic and what we should have learned as bad tactics from the 80's?

Posted by: dl | Jul 16, 2008 8:40:49 AM

GOP mass hypnosis is making it's way through the MSM. War is good, wrong is right, the economy is healthy, health care for the few, fight them over in Iraq....
So many blind, deaf and dumb to choose from the GOP has a large circus tent filled to overflowing.

Posted by: David | Jul 16, 2008 7:39:45 AM

I can see why this guy has to have Sanctimonious Joe by his side at all times. For two days in a row, he's talked about Czechoslovakia...a country that no longer exists.

Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | Jul 16, 2008 6:52:33 AM

At least McCain is smart enough to come around to Obama's way of thinking.

It may be another flip-flop from the "Double-Talk Express", but at least it's George W McCain's first INTELLIGENT flip-flop.

Posted by: wilderrr | Jul 16, 2008 6:38:25 AM

Just what this country needs another "DOLT" like BUSH in the White House for 4 more years...Throw the GOP bum's out the front door..

Posted by: Repubsout | Jul 16, 2008 2:36:41 AM

Bush went as President... not as a candidate for office looking for a photo op.

Mccain made a quiet trip to Iraq
around Father's Day to visit his son.
Most of us weren't even aware of it until it was over.

Posted by: eyes wide open | Jul 16, 2008 12:44:44 AM

I remember when the Obama haters in Washington were calling him naive and irresponsible for wanting to talk to world leaders. They claimed that "America does not negotiate with rogue leaders and terrorists". Just in the last few weeks Bush talked with North Korea and now going to talk to Iran. Talk about major flip-flopping and the pots calling the kettle black. It seems McCain and Bush are following Obama's lead, how ironic. Go Obama!!!

Posted by: Beth | Jul 16, 2008 12:41:11 AM

is grandmaisgold.. sandy?

or do they share the same script?

on purpose?

Posted by: hmmmmmmmmmm | Jul 16, 2008 12:33:50 AM

John's conscience: Oh, you mean Obama chaired his committee in absentia? Obama is all talk. The problem is he forgets what he said before, then says something different. It is a joke that he speaks of solutions for Afghanistan when he did nothing on the committee he chaired. Change we can believe in!

PUMA

Hillary/McCain '08

Posted by: georgia | Jul 15, 2008 11:14:59 PM

AkaDad - As of yesterday McCain's flip-flops were up to 70. Of course, that was before today. The self-professed candidate of “straight talk” and “experience” spent today changing his position on gay adoption, adopting Senator Obama’s position that we need more troops in Afghanistan after having resisted taking that position, flip flopping on whether he’d send U.S. or NATO troops (he actually offered three different explanations on where those additional troops would come from), and referring to a country that hasn’t existed since 1992 for the second time in two days.

Posted by: grandmaisgold | Jul 15, 2008 10:47:46 PM

dmac: Totally agree with you!

Posted by: Colorado Dem | Jul 15, 2008 10:45:34 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS