Petraeus' and NATO's new strategy is much closer to Obama's than McCain's

[caesu]

The Afghanistan Test

Petraeus' and NATO's new strategy is much closer to Obama's than McCain's.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Oct. 16, 2008, at 5:54 PM ET

The final presidential debate didn't touch on foreign policy, but two events this week involving Afghanistan bolster the impression, gained from earlier debates, that Barack Obama has a grip on reality while John McCain does not.

First, today's Washington Post reports that NATO officials have directed their commanders in Afghanistan to reduce their reliance on air strikes in order to avoid killing civilians. In skirmishes where air strikes are needed to defeat Taliban insurgents, commanders are even instructed to consider a "tactical withdrawal" instead if civilians are in the area.

Of the roughly 1,400 Afghan civilians killed so far this year, 395 have been casualties of Western air strikes—killings that, though unintended, have intensified anti-Americanism, tarnished President Hamid Karzai's government (by dint of association), and boosted support for the Taliban. In a counterinsurgency campaign, which is aimed primarily at the hearts and minds of the local population, the consequences are not just tragic for the victims and their families but disastrous for the goals of the war.

In August 2007, at a campaign rally in New Hampshire, Obama cited these civilian casualties as his reason for wanting to send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan. "We've got to get the job done there," he said, "and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

Earlier this month, on Fox News and in the vice-presidential debate, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin took that statement wildly out of context, saying of Obama, "Some of the comments he's made about Afghanistan, what we are doing there, 'just air raiding villages and killing civilians'—that's reckless" and should "disqualify" him to be commander in chief. (The fact that Palin repeated the remark suggests that it had McCain's imprimatur.)

Judging from their order this week to the commanders on the ground, NATO's top officials endorse the position of Obama.

The week's second telling event, also reported in today's Post, is that Gen. David Petraeus has launched his long-awaited reassessment of U.S. strategy in the Middle East and South Asia, viewing the war in Afghanistan as one part of a broader, regional approach. (On Oct. 31, Petraeus is scheduled to take over U.S. Central Command, which entails all American troops in those areas.)

The strategic review, which involves more than 100 advisers working in six task forces, will focus on two issues in particular, the Post reports: reconciliation of moderate Taliban insurgents with the Afghan government (or at least with the fight against al-Qaida) and diplomatic initiatives with neighboring countries toward the ultimate goal of weakening jihadist forces in Pakistan.

One of the scholars whom Petraeus has consulted at some length in his review is Ahmed Rashid, the brilliant Pakistani journalist and author of Taliban and Descent Into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, which are widely regarded as the best books on the subject.

In the current issue of Foreign Affairs (not yet online), Rashid and Barnett Rubin, a professor at New York University and another prominent specialist on the region, write that the crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan can be resolved only through a "grand bargain," which offers political inclusion to as many reconcilable Taliban insurgents as possible—in exchange for their cooperation against al-Qaida—and diplomatic initiatives designed to stabilize Afghanistan and address the legitimate sources of Pakistan's insecurity. These initiatives, the authors emphasize, must be taken in cooperation with China and Saudi Arabia—heavy investors in Pakistan—and with a contract group to be formed by the U.N. Security Council.

This concept seems consistent with the approach that Petraeus would like to take, if he can find a concrete path.

Neither presidential candidate has outlined such a broad strategic plan for dealing with Afghanistan or Pakistan. Both have overemphasized military solutions, which Rashid and Rubin say are necessary but not sufficient to solve the problems at hand. But Obama has at least embraced diplomacy as an essential tool for dealing with security problems in general. In the first two debates, he also recognized that Afghanistan could not be settled without cooperation from Pakistan.

McCain, on the other hand, has said that Petraeus will win in Afghanistan simply by using the same strategy that he employed as commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. (Petraeus himself dismissed this notion in an Oct. 8 speech at the Heritage Foundation, noting, "The biggest lesson of counterinsurgency is that every situation is unique.")

To the extent that McCain favors diplomacy, he wants to conduct it through a League of Democracy, which he envisions as an organization of nations, apart from the United Nations, that share democratic values and institutions. The idea sounds good, except that even democratic nations disagree on policy (see the Iraq war) and that most security issues these days cannot be divided along the lines of democracies vs. authoritarians. Specifically, neither China nor Saudi Arabia—two nations that Rashid and Rubin say are vital to solving the Pakistan problems—would belong to McCain's league.

Obama may need to take a few more steps along the road that he's been following. McCain is just daydreaming.
Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and the author of Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2202455/

the fact Petraeus wouldn't mind considering negotiating with moderate element of the Taleban was very underreported.
i hoped in a debate a question about this would be asked.

[Slogger]

Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama
Wed Aug 1, 2007 7:26pm EDT
By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
The Illinois Democrat is trying to convince Americans he has the foreign policy heft to be president after a rival candidate, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, questioned his readiness to be commander in chief.

Clinton last week labeled Obama naive for saying he would be willing to meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela without preconditions in his first year in office.
A poll by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News said Clinton has widened her lead over Obama, going up to 43 percent in July from 39 percent in June. Obama tallied 22 percent, down from 25 percent in June.

Those polled cited Clinton's experience and competence highest among her positive attributes.

Obama said he would make hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on Pakistan making substantial progress in closing down training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks on Afghanistan.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Pakistan was working hard to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban, and Washington was doing what it could in support.

"At the same time, we recognize the sovereignty of the Pakistani government and realize that they're putting on a serious push ... They're taking the fight to al Qaeda," Snow said.

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN0132206420070801

While Sen. Obama would be conducting diplomacy "face to face" without preconditions, he would be bombing inside Pakistan without permission, without the agreement of a sovereign nation.

Sen. Obama might have made a better diplomat than head of a powerful nation.  His inexperience could lead to terrible consequences.

Verbally abusive to the U.S., Sen. Obama would bomb inside the borders of another country causing an all-out war with Pakistan while conducting a war in Afghanistan and Iraq.  He would be soft-pedalling the consequences of Iran's conduct during diplomatic talks with that country.

Obama must believe there wouldn't be outcries of air-raiding  villages and killing civilians.  The shouts would come from his own party and leftist wings, leaning almost perpendicular to the ground.

Does Obama live in France?  Does Obama vacation is Venezuela?

Where the heck does he get his wacky ideas?  The ideas could be considered almost funny, if the Senator were not running for the highest position in our government.

It's not funny . . . it's serious; and it could be deadly.

[caesu]

i can inform you the US is already striking targets in Pakistan.
sometimes without approval of Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7611721.stm

and it was McCain who sung: bomb bomb Iran.

it's good thing that Obama and Petraeus are on the same page.
that's going to help in the transition period starting right after the election.

[Slogger]

i can inform you the US is already striking targets in Pakistan.
sometimes without approval of Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7611721.stm

and it was McCain who sung: bomb bomb Iran.

it's good thing that Obama and Petraeus are on the same page.
that's going to help in the transition period starting right after the election.

We weren't bombing inside Pakistan on Aug. 1, 2007.

[caesu]

i can inform you the US is already striking targets in Pakistan.
sometimes without approval of Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7611721.stm

and it was McCain who sung: bomb bomb Iran.

it's good thing that Obama and Petraeus are on the same page.
that's going to help in the transition period starting right after the election.

We weren't bombing inside Pakistan on Aug. 1, 2007.

not sure what you mean there.

Petraeus is now actually following the advise Obama gave that day.

and about that "air-raiding" villages in Afghanistan.
in context he meant: sent troops on the ground in - and refrain from airstrikes in Afghanistan.
well surprise: that's actually also what's happening now. did you actually read the article?

Petraeus and Obama are exactly on the same page.
Petraeus and McCain are not. and Petraeus and Bush i don't know - is Bush on any page??

if Obama points this out in a nice ad, McCain is pretty much done for.
i am just guessing Obama will only do this if necessary - if McCain goes ahead in the polls.
because he won't embarrass a war-hero.
to me that shows Obama's decency - in contrast to McCain's attack ad linking him to terrorism.

[Slogger]

We weren't bombing inside Pakistan on Aug. 1, 2007.

Caesu

not sure what you mean there.

Petraeus is now actually following the advise Obama gave that day.

and about that "air-raiding" villages in Afghanistan.
in context he meant: sent troops on the ground in - and refrain from airstrikes in Afghanistan.
well surprise: that's actually also what's happening now. did you actually read the article?

Petraeus and Obama are exactly on the same page.
Petraeus and McCain are not. and Petraeus and Bush i don't know - is Bush on any page??

if Obama points this out in a nice ad, McCain is pretty much done for.
i am just guessing Obama will only do this if necessary - if McCain goes ahead in the polls.
because he won't embarrass a war-hero.
to me that shows Obama's decency - in contrast to McCain's attack ad linking him to terrorism.

I doubt Gen. Patraeus is receiving whispers from Obama. 

My preference would be combinations of tactics and strategies.  Precision air strikes kill terrorists, save American Soldiers' lives.  We try our best not to kill civilians, unlike Terrorists who care little about the deaths of their own, or anyone else.  They hide among the villagers.  PC hampers US during war; doesn't stop the terrorists for a second.

Somewhere, I believe, there is a quote from Obama about what he would have done differently, which included bombing Pakistan and not working with Pakistan during Afghan War.

Serrogates are doing the down 'n dirty for Obama.  NYT has an article delving into Cindy McCain, while it would be shocking if they did a similar article on Michelle Obama.  Michelle is off limits, but Cindy is not.

MSM is in the tank for Obama.  Millions in funding for Obama Ads.  Expose Cindy; pat Michelle.  Obama promises will disappear, if he is elected; and what you get will upset you.