10/7/08

Throughout this campaign Senator McCain has failed to lay out concrete plans on some of the most important national security issues before the U.S. McCain has either adopted an incoherent approach, such as with Iran, where he will attack his opponent’s position in one sentence and then agree with it in the next, or replaced policy proposals with empty platitudes about “not surrendering” and achieving “victory” in reference to Iraq and Afghanistan.

• On Iran, McCain’s position is completely incoherent after the last debate.  In a well publicized exchange McCain said he was in favor of “diplomacy” and endorsed his advisor former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, views’ that there should be high-level talks at the Secretary of State level with no preconditions. Yet McCain called Sen. Obama’s plan to meet at the highest level without preconditions “naïve” and “dangerous.” Is the only difference then that McCain is for talks at the Secretary of State-level while Obama would favor talks between the President and the Iran’s Supreme Leader?
• On Iraq, McCain has never laid out a clear plan to bring the troops home. He has simply said he would achieve “victory” and bring troops home before his first term in office ends. He has insisted that conditions on the ground be met, but he has never explained what those conditions are or how he would push Iraqis to achieve political progress. 
• On Afghanistan, McCain has said he supports an Iraq-style surge there. But he has failed to explain how this would work. Meanwhile both Generals Petraeus and McKiernan have said that Iraq and Afghanistan are very different and rejected the idea of a parallel surge.
  

Tonight is the last Presidential debate in which foreign policy issues can be raised. While the focus will likely be on the economy, Americans deserve more clarity on McCain’s positions on the most crucial foreign policy issues before us.

After debates, McCain’s position on Iran is completely incoherent.  McCain takes a confrontational approach on Iran: singing “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” and blasting Sen. Obama’s calls for high-level diplomacy without preconditions at the first debate as “dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous.” McCain has claimed Kissinger as an adviser and argued that Kissinger’s position was in sync with his. Yet at a forum hosted by CNN a week before the debate Kissinger said he was “in favor of negotiating with Iran” and said “I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.” McCain and Kissinger also seem out of sync on the appropriateness of high-level talks.  Yet McCain said during the first presidential debate, “Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that… He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I've always encouraged them… And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.” McCain is correct that Henry Kissinger has called for meetings at the Secretary of State level, but Kissinger described this as “high level” saying, “Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran…at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...” CNN’s Frank Sesno followed up “Put at a very high level right out of the box?” Kissinger responded, “Initially, yes.” Yet despite having the opportunity to clarify their positions between the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates, Gov. Palin said at the debate that “Henry Kissinger especially. I had a good conversation with him recently. And he shared with me his passion for diplomacy. And that's what John McCain and I would engage in also.” [Presidential Debate Transcript, 9/26/08. CNN's "Live Event," 9/20/08. New York Times, 10/2/08]

McCain has never laid out a plan for bringing the troops home from Iraq.  In May of this year McCain laid out an aspirational vision for his administration, “By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders.”  Yet McCain has not given any details or even an over-all approach to achieve these goals.  In a just released interview, Michael Gordon of the New York Times writes when “asked to explain his plan, Mr. McCain did not provide any specific suggestions for how he could persuade Iraqi officials to make headway on these thorny political issues, beyond the sort of behind-the-scenes cajoling that American officials are already undertaking.” [John McCain, 5/15/08. New York Times, 10/6/08]

McCain’s simplistic approach for Afghanistan - to apply the “surge strategy” from Iraq - has been publicly rejected by commanders on the ground.  During the Presidential debate, McCain said of the surge that “that same strategy will be employed in Afghanistan,” but even earlier he had said that “it is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan.”  Speaking in Washington last week, General David McKiernan, head of the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan and former head of ground forces in Iraq, rejected McCain’s plan for Afghanistan.  McKiernan argued that more troops “are urgently required to combat a worsening insurgency, but he stated emphatically that no Iraq-style ‘surge’ of forces will end the conflict there.”  The commanding general clearly stated “Afghanistan is not Iraq.” General David Petraeus, now the head of CENTCOM and former commander in Iraq said, “People often ask, ‘What did you learn from Iraq that might be transferable to Afghanistan?’... The first lesson, the first caution really, is that every situation like this is truly and absolutely unique, and has its own context and specifics and its own texture.” [John McCain, 9/26/08. John McCain, 7/15/08. Washington Post, 10/2/08. New York Times, 10/1/08]

Quick Hits

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America released their Congressional scorecard.  Senator John McCain received a “D” and Senator Barack Obama a “B.”

The global financial crisis continues, with stock markets sliding worldwide including in the Middle East.  Europe seeks a unified response.  Iceland and Russia are particularly troubled.

Iraq’s foreign minister said that a deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after 2008 is close following talks with Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.  Two bombs went off near the news conference in Baghdad’s Green Zone.

A suicide bombing in central Pakistan killed at least 20, targeting the home of the top opposition leader in Parliament.

Iraq’s foreign minister said that a deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after 2008 is close following talks with Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.  Two bombs went off near the news conference in Baghdad’s Green Zone.

Iran accused the six major powers of “unreasonable behavior” in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program.

Russia accused Georgia of new hostilities as Russian forces withdraw from checkpoints ahead of Friday’s deadline.  The New York Times has a piece on Georgia’s news media, which has faced persecution.

The U.S.-led coalition killed 43 militants in southern Afghanistan.  The Economist has a piece on the changing nature of the Taliban as it enters peace talks with the Afghan government.

A protest in Baghdad by Iraqi Christians and others soughed to restore the minority representation provision that was removed from the disputed provincial election law before passage.

Protests in Thailand are becoming increasingly violent.  The People’s Alliance for Democracy is a group of academics and businessmen that seeks to limit the voting power of the rural poor and accuses the current government of being a proxy of former Prime Minister Thaskin Shinawatra, ousted in 2006.  The protestors physically trapped the Parliament, forcing the current Prime Minister, Mr. Thaskin’s brother-in-law, to escape over a back fence.  A car bombing in Bangkok killed one, though it is unclear whether it the bombing is related to the protests.