Mullen Blasts Bush-McCain Policy On Afghanistan
By Cernig Wednesday Sep 10, 2008 3:00pm
Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is admitting that he's worried about Afghanistan.
I'm not convinced we are winning it in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in sobering testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee nearly seven years after U.S.-led forces toppled Afghanistan's former Taliban regime following the September 11 attacks.
Mullen said he was already "looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy for the region" that would cover both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
"In my view, these two nations are inextricably linked in a common insurgency that crosses the border between them," he told lawmakers.
"We can hunt down and kill extremists as they cross over the border from Pakistan ... but until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming."
..."Add to this a poor and struggling Afghan economy, a still-healthy narcotics trade there and a significant political uncertainty in Pakistan, and you have all the makings of a complex, difficult struggle that will take time," he said.
He also warned that time was running out on the ability of the West to provide Afghanistan with vital nonmilitary assistance for Afghanistan including roads, schools, alternative crops for farmers and the rule of law.
"These are the keys to success in Afghanistan. We cannot kill our way to victory and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone," Mullen said.
That's pretty straight talk and is probably a result of commander's sense of frustration with the White House. Bush short-changed the commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, letting them have less additional troops than they'd asked for and later than they'd asked for them. And Mullen's words are an implicit endorsement of Obama's plan for the region.
The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.
Make no mistake: we can’t succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That’s why I’m cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.
Obama, for his part, replied to Bush's day-late-and-dollar-short announcement by saying "His plan comes up short -- it is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency," while John McCain simply praised Bush's shortchanging of the region.
And other military commanders are being almost as straightforward as Mullen in voicing their displeasure.
"To protect the 10 million Afghans, plus the three or so million that are in Kabul, given the numbers that we have here, they just don't work out totally," Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, the number two US commander in Afghanistan, told reporters on Friday.
"You know, it's very difficult for us to be able to do that, given the numbers we have, given the terrain we have," he said.
US forces are not losing the war, but it is "a slow win," Schloesser said.
...Schloesser said there were areas of his sector of eastern Afghanistan where he had "very low numbers of troops."
"I can come in and I can clobber the enemy, but then I can't hold it and stay with the people," he said.
As have military analysts.
Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, observed that the Taliban and other insurgent groups have dramatically expanded their presence in Afghanistan since 2004.
Declassified US intelligence and UN maps show that the area of Taliban and insurgent influence or presence doubled between 2004 and 2005, quadrupled between 2005 and 2006, and rose sharply again between 2006 and 2007, Cordesman said.
"At this point in time, US-NATO/ISAF-Afghan forces are simply too weak to deal with a multi-faceted insurgency with a de facto sanctuary along the entire Afghan-Pakistan border," Cordesman wrote in a paper posted on the CSIS website.
Even the military acknowledges it - a vote for McCain's continuation of Bush's failed policy in the region is a vote to lose the war in Afghanistan by slow attrition of troops' lives and national treasure. On Wednesday, the Obama campaign underlined that in a press statement:
"Today, while John McCain's dishonorable campaign was peddling phony outrage and false advertisements, the United States military confirmed what Barack Obama has been saying for years: we need more troops and a new strategy to win the war against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. The American people have a clear choice between Barack Obama's serious focus on confronting terrorism, and John McCain's focus on lipstick and a pig," said Wendy Morigi, national security spokesperson.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
More rhetoric.
Bring Sarah Palin back to C&L!!!
At least some pictures.
I agree with it's stin winnable, if we dedicate the proper resources and that's going to be a problem with Bush in office and the Army tied down in Iraq.
dennis @ 2:
Drug warning! If your erection lasts more than 48 hours, call a doctor!
Jesus, dennis, haven't you worn that thing out yet?
A 30 second PSA I just did in iMovie. Pay it forward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUWLIsK7s0g
The original MP4 video file is here:
http://www.bgladd.com/PalinUnqualified30secPSA.mp4
The MP3 audio track alone, here:
http://www.bgladd.com/PalinUnqualified30secPSA.mp3
We simply cannot let this reckless risk to our country happen.
The French aren't too happy with uprise Afghanistan situation...
They lost ten people in an ambush in August...
President Nicolas Sarkozy went over there and personally picked up the bodies of his country men....
He even announced it...
There was a very moving homage to these brave soldiers...
What does President Bush do when he visits the area?
Has he ever announced publicly prior that he was going over there?
Has he ever gone over there to gather the people who laid down their lives for this war?
Or do they hide the bodies and restrict the media from viewing the caskets?...
The best plan for both Afghanistan and Mr. Palin: pull out.
No good will come from continued action.
[Deleted. Spam. Site Monitor]
dennis @ 2:
IS taht all you think about when you see Sarah ? T&A ?!?!
What about her executive experiences ?
VietVet8666 @ 7:
Just ask the Russians....
Everyone thought it was, and still think it is great we invaded Afghanistan.
When we did go in we failed in our objectives.
What's next?
There is one thing that isn't talked about much (but it is the 500 pound gorilla in the livingroom) and that is the poppy trade and the fact that Turkey is processing and refining the drug. That gives Afghanistan the needed capitol to carry on.
This needs to be addressed imho.
Iraq=Afghanistan
Afghanistan=Iraq
No difference at all whatsoever.
none.
The only people, that win wars in Afghanistan, are the Afghans.
Currently the DoD is evaluating the role of anthropoligists to help maintain peace in troubled regions. The Chairman and the Secretary of Defense understand very well that we can not kill our way to victory. Unfortunately our President and nearly 50% of our country can not grasp that simnple concept. Instead of drill, drll, drill, most Americans and our President are comfortable and promote Kill, Kill, Kill.
Afghanistan broke Russia. Bush's half-hearted attempts seem to be a repeat of the same story.
Jo @ 12:
We turn a blind eye to this dreadful drug that finds it's way into the veins of people all around the world....
So it's good business and a real democracy building tactic to aide drug addicts all around the world...
dennis @ 2:
C. Hussein Jr. @ 13:
Who is Sarah Palin? We have issues to discuss. Find your picture at Google images.
Edwin Hussein @ 16:
Tragic isn't it...not having a president who does not have a clue to learn from history....
WE are so vulnerable with this half-wit...
Like babes in the woods...
Oops. [at] 13 shouldn't be part of my message [at] 18.
There is a place called Afghanistan? Wow! I also heard of a place called Iraq. MSM seems to forget about wars they promoted.
Is Coast Clear?--- @ 17:
This adinistration is focussed on only ONE thing; OIL! (and the power and money that come along with it)
Is Coast Clear?--- @ 17:
And one of the sad things, if not the saddest, is that world leaders making a concerted effort could end this scourge. But only half-hearted attempts and no planning seem to be the norm.
This is all BULLSHIT -- winning in Afghanistan?????!!!!!! And the Democrats (including this site) run with this crap.
How about U.S. OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!
Marc @ 1:
I agree!
Dear, Admiral Mike Mullen
If you know McCain will continue Bush’s failed policies and can see the danger of America's future.
Endorse Obama now!
I'm happy you expressed you concerns but you need to take more action!
If you don't know, Americans are idiots! All you concerns will be sweep-ed under like every other important issue.
I'm sorry but average voters don't pay attention enough to realize you are siding with Obama.
Endorse Obama now!
Tell Americans that McCain has got this war all wrong!
TI can see there is some loyalty going for McCain.
But POW or not, you know he's making a mistake.
This is Protecting America, Not John McCain!
While McCain service is honored.
What about honoring America, the people and the soldiers who are dying.
Honestly, come out and endorse Obama.
Otherwise your just as bad for support 4 more years of John Bush.
Sincerely
John J
Is Coast Clear?--- @ 6:
Or does he go shopping rather than visit the wounded soldiers? Oh, no, that was OhNobama.
Oooh, sorry Admiral, George only listens to his Generals... And if you were a General, you'd be fired soon for spreading truth and candor like that.
dennis @ 2:
Why don't you go to Alaska and open a car wash with Todd, then Sarah will give you a whirl.
Is Coast Clear?--- @ 17:
There is lots of evidence showing CIA involvement in drug trading. Why, for example, does the U.S. not destroy the Afghan poppy fields? Answer: Some parties in or connected to the U.S. government are making a big profit here.
roger @ 24:
You're right....
See #16....
Afghanistan has already broke our back....
But Iraq gave us brain damage....
Because just look at the GOP's platform regarding Iran....
That perspective has got to be from a deranged brain....
TobyWanKinobi @ 27:
Now listen here troll...go home...it's not working anymore you sad and silly spin on things....
Say we 'win' in Afghanistan. What's the prize?
I thought we got in to get Osama Bin Laden. We even gave him advance notice when King George told him on National TV that he'd been sending in armies to chase him down, months before the invasion began. Some call this, 'Tipping your hand', but Bush probably thinks it's sporting to give relatives of his business partners a head start.
So now, we're probably not gonna get Bin Laden (because he died in 2000 maybe?), so I ask again, "What do we win?"
If we're gonna win a buttload of imported heroin, I'm not interested.
Look over there! Obama called our Sarah a pig! That's what's important!
#30
That part of the story will never see the light of day, sad to say...
I can't imagine just how far governments will sacrifice innocent weak people just for money...
Tragic....
Rub-me-cans support drug dealers Democrats support drug users tis really a simple thing.
We spend $100,000 to kill 6 guys with AK-47's.
It is not about winning or losing it is about maintaining the BUDGET !
We can never win but it is immediately fundable.
The real war is about who gets our cash.
Jo @ 4:
he won't have anything tosay about admiral mullen...or
gen.casey or sanchez......plenty to say about the guy he voted for g.w. bush
Is Coast Clear?--- @ 32:
OhNo did go see the wounded soldiers? Golly, I must have missed those photos.
TobyWanKinobi @ 38:
oh your the person that said windmills won't do anything for cars.....i guess you forgot about the new generation plug in vehilcles coming out. plug in vehicles will reduce oil demand........
C. Hussein Jr. @ 9:
There's more to Sarah than just being pretty? Wow. She's not a yummy as Dana Perino, but about two or three beers and I'll tap it good looking.
#39
Just ignore that person....just another troll trying to draw you into a fight....
It's been a really good discussion....
Thanks til next time....
Peace------
This Admiral and others have opened a can of worms for Bush and McCain and a major opportunity for the rest of us. We have about ruined the country through this ridiculous occupation and now the "biggest boots on the ground" are stating the simple fact that we have to embrace a totally different approach if the goal is to defeat or badly weaken fundamentalist terrorist networks. This is what we must talk about so that we can debunk the crap about "the surge will/can/has worked". The surge is nothing more that finding a single burning tree in the middle of a forest fire and putting all your resources into putting that one tree out.
Want to read a great parable on how we got into this mess? Check this out - if you haven't seen it already:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/opinion/11Cohen.html?th&emc=th
mccain/palin presidency
mccain:......'maybe will be their 100 yrs. the public doesn't mind as long as there NO casualities'
mccain:.....'there will more wars......my friends'
mccain......'we're all Georgians'
palin......singing:'onward christian soldiers...marching....'
constituent @ 39:
Did you ever bother to ask yourself how that electricity comes out of that plug? It ain't free brother or sister. It comes from a power plant that burns oil, natural gas or coal. Alternative energy such as solar and wind will help some, but biofuels carry a huge price tag, namely trading food for fuel and the U.S. is a MAJOR food source to the world. We need all energy sources including oil, natural gas, nuclear power AND alternatives. Palin is the one who bucked big oil and negotiated a $40 billionnatural gas pipeline from Alaska through Canada to the lower 48 states. Hmm, sounds like international affairs experience to me.
ONLY the McCain-Palin ticket offers a well rounded energy plan. If OhNo thinks he can get us off oil in 10 years, he is far more naive than I feared or He's lying to you.
Will someone please define just what it means to "win" in Iraq and Afghanistan? There has been sectarian violence in what is now Iraq since 700 AD. In Afghanistan the different tribes have been fighting since the stone age. Does anyone in Washington DC really think that we can bring peace and democracy to these countries? How long can we sustain our presence in these countries without bankrupting America?
TobyWanKinobi @ 42:
That pipeling is far from a done deal and not expected to deliver natural gas to the lower 48 for 10-15 years if it is ever constructed. But, I do agree that we need to explore all options to achieve energy independence. Palin may have a working knowledge of the petroleum industry but is far, far from being an expert.
What crap! This is not just the "Bush-McCain Policy On Afghanistan"...
Its the Obama-Bush-McCain Policy on Afghanistan.
Surge II: The Soviet Mistake Repeated.
P.D. @ 21:
In the words of Pubbs
"you lied to me, you lied to me Mac, there is a Seattle... and other places!"
Well, Admiral Mullen didn't up and say 'we need to get out of the region'... But he came damn close, maybe dangerously too close for his career, to revealing by implication to just how stupidly incompetent his civilian bosses are, have been, and will remain as long as the current administration sits in D.C. fucking shit up.... It's one thing for me and countless other bloggers to rant about the king jerkwad with no clothes... It's quite another matter when the head of the joint chiefs indicates the same, no matter how obliquely he's saying it.... Our military leaders may follow the orders handed down from the wh, but they ain't dumb.... They know full well Bush has put us in the shitter...
P.S. Tobywonkindaidiot??? STFU.... Noone here is interested in your weakass talking points cheerleading for your boyfriend......JD
samsuncle @ 44:
there's a transition. coal is king your not educating me on anything. YOU said windmills had NO connection to vehicles your wrong and i know for sure. natural gas will also be huge.
so what palin TAXED oil co. profit....the pipeline is a joke so far.
you skipped right over wind....check the wind and solar
stocks and their technology....it's going crazy worldwide.i'm not against oil and coal.....nuclear nothing has been done for 30yrs....i know smart so i
you understand why nuclear is lagging...let me help.
storage for waste is very limited world wide that's one
two the big insurers are concerned that they are potential terrorists targets,difficult finding investors projects take long and are very expensive so the public will probably bare the cost.
remember the word TRANSITION that's obama's plan.
there will be more resource wars if we don't get some
yes some % of the population on alternatives to reduce
the need for fossil fuels.
Of course the U.S. is winning in Afghanistan. After the Taliban nearly eradicated poppy production, the U.S. invaded and last year was the largest opium crop ever.
The CIA isn't only in the cocaine trafficking business. Just think of the money being made.
I'd say, "Mission Accomplished"!
What do you call someone who deals drugs and kills others? Mobsters? Thugs? Gang members?
No. There called "contractors" excercising "U.S. Foreign Policy".
"ONLY the McCain-Palin ticket offers a well rounded energy plan. If OhNo thinks he can get us off oil in 10 years, he is far more naive than I feared or He’s lying to you."
Straight out of the "talking points" now making the rounds and total BS. McCain-Palin have an energy plan, history of deep involvement, and mucho campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries. Their energy "plan" is more oil, more gas, more favors for the industry and some rhetoric about alternatives. This is another perfect "lipstick on a pig" example.
Obama is articulating a necessity and a commitment that can be met if "we" get off our butts and work toward it. And "we" means the energy companies as well. The Rockefeller family tried to get EXXON to make the shift and were turned down, of course. It also means that "we" have to change a lot of wasteful habits and start to focus on the long-term rather than constantly pursuing narrow, selfish, short-term gains. (Check it out - that is a strategy that can even put the whole financial system on its knees).
McCain and Palin are more of the same and are ashamed of it so they are trying to pretend they are "reformers" and "mavericks." They are right-wing, ultra-conservative, military loving, power-seeking aristocrat wannabes.
And for those of you who have not served in the military, you need to know that Admirals and their families are treated like royalty. They get special treatment and are used to everyone around them saying "yes sir!" "whatever you say sir." Explains a few things about McCain's love of his wife's jet and houses.
samsuncle @ 43:
It means liberty and freedom for those people. It means stable, nonaggressive Nations in a region that has been beset by conflict for hundreds of years as you say. It means rogue, dictatorial states such as Iran and Syria come under intense pressure from their own citizens as the citizens begin to feel deprived of the prosperity and freedom their neighbors have. It means the chance of a major war is vastly reduced.
Does anyone believe we can win? McCain-Palin believe we can win and they understand the importance of winning. They understand that by winning we reduce the chance of an attack on American soil. Negotiations will ONLY work if the people you are negotiating with either want the same things as you, or you are negotiating from position of dominating strength. Iran does NOT want what we want so we MUST negotiate from a position of dominating strength. Only McCain-Palin offer the strength that our enemies will believe. Obama is a milquetoast compared to them.
As far as the expense. Nobody likes the expense, neither in human life nor in $$$, but what would be the expense of a detonation of a nuclear warhead in New York? Millions dead and Trillions, not billions, of dollars lost.
greg white @ 51:
And its intriguing that it seems the main people being targeted by the Law in the US are producers of non imported drugs,
its almost like somebody doesnt want any domestic drug production competing with the imported stuff.
TobyWanKinobi @ 54:
Might not do as much damage as people think, big steel reinforced concrete buildings would shield the blast of small devices,
would be nasty but localized damage.
And unless you directed a satellite radiation detector on every ship large and small approaching the city, no chance of stopping one going off on the water.
Pretty grim really if somebody was determined to do it, they couldn't be stopped.
Bushco has failed miserably in practicing nuclear non proliferation, rather the opposite, their friends have sold nuke tech to everybody with loose change, and contact with a Repug.
TobyWanKinobi @ 54:
how does that fit with israel not signing non-proliferation treaty....why does someone like
admiral fallon considered an intellect talk about diplomacy i know your smarter than fallon so please enlighten me. look n.korea bush dropped the ball because he went at it wrong and he didn't n. kora off the bad guy list. you can love your bush and now mccain......iraq has cost us a trillion for what? now we have pissed off russia great
i believe a report/study came out recently regarding our
readiness/preparation for an attack....i haven't seen anything my undersanding it's NOT good. why is that bush fans soon to be mccain fans........you had 8 yrs. why aren't our ports secure.
TobyWanKinobi @ 54:
Toby...Drinkin the Koolaid.
Glug.
Ugh.
samsuncle @ 45:
they don't even know so now it's called success. they have NO intentions of leaving. israel doesn't want iran to have future influence in iraq
Calling the failed war in Afghanistan "Bush-McCain Policy" is a cheap shot against John McCain. The Afghan War is exclusively George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney's war. John McCain has absolutely nothing to do with Bush Administration policy formulation in Afghanistan. Yes, as a US Senator he is consulted, serves on committee, votes on appropriations and voices hawkish opinion but, he is not involved in any other way. McCain was estranged from the Bush Administration for the first five years of the Bush Presidency only coming back into the fold after W.'s overtures and he has never been close to Cheney.
Regrettably, McCain claims that he will continue Bush Policy in Afghanistan however, remains uncommitted toward direct military action in and against Pakistan. Barack Obama, on the other hand, states that he will go into Waziristan.
A vote for McCain is an invitation to more folly but, to tag actual Bush Administration policy with his name is historically incorrect.
Saint Augustine @ 29:
Them rethuglican broads, they're dirty, I tell ya.
Oh really! There goes another General. Bye bye
TobyWanKinobi @ 54:
Hey, stupid, who created the mess in Iraq in the first place? They had nothing to do with our "enemies".
Second, how can we continue to fight the so-called "war on terror" with conventional means when we know that is also a failed policy. We should have been working with the rest of the world all these years, trying to stop terrorism at its roots.
The US government DOES NOT CARE ABOUT TERRORISM. The Bush administration EMBRACES terrorism.
When the towers fell, Cheney smiled.
The fears of stupid people like you have allowed them their (limited) hegemony in the middle east, and for a fantastic wealth transfer.
God, I hate people like you.
roger @ 24:
Very well said. As this link makes clear, the two major candidates continue to push the myth of the GWOT and as a result, the people of Afghanistan continue to pay the price when 500 and 2000 lb. American bombs are rained down on their villages and homes and farmhouses. It is highly doubtful if the Afghans regard Obama's plan to escalate the war in their country as a sign of hope and change.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=13430
Does Bush have time to fire him, cause if so, he's the fuck out of there. Bush doesn't like the truth, and people are usually sent packing.
I agree with him.
A strategy dealing only with "insurgents" in Afghanistan is doomed to failure, due to the nature of things in Pakistan.
When you have elements of the Pakistani ISI covertly supporting radical groups on the Pakistani side of the border, a military solution looks increasingly unlikely.
A better question to ask, in my opinion is: Why is this our war to fight?
As tragic as September 11 was, it killed far less people than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did. What, in short, are we trying to achieve over there?
The truth of the matter is that MOST terrorist attacks can be thwarted, as they have been, by existing security, law enforcement and intelligence efforts.
Nobody is 100% safe all the time. To expect to be is to harbour delusions.
It's time to face reality. Sometimes bad foreign policies result in blowback. When that happens, stomping around the world attempting to impose your iron will will only increase the odds of future blowback.
A better solution is to work more collaboratively with the nations of the world in such a way that you do not stoke the flames of radicalism in the first place.
Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 67:
Eric H.
Very well said.
Mike V. @ 64:
Gosh, let me think, Mike. Oh, yeah, Sadam Hussein invaded Kuwait, one of our middle east friends, then failed to abide by the terms of the peace, refused to allow inspectors access to suspected WMD sites, flew in no-fly zones, thumbed his nose at a bazillion UN pontifications, and continued to generally threaten everybody in the region, especially our friends. You want to say Bush created, what used to be, a mess, but all Sadam had to do was to comply with the conditions of the peace and allow inspections. Did you ever bother to ask why did he prohibit access if he didn't have WMDs? What did he have to hide? I've always been curious.
And as far as this being a mess and a failed policy, true there were definitely some missteps, but the Nation that has been born may very well be the seed to a lasting peace in the region, if it is allowed to grow that is.
People like me? You mean people with a different viewpoint than yours? That's very tragic. You see, I don't hate you, I just disagree with you. I think you're a little touched with your Bush/Cheney embrace terrorism ideas, but, hey, I guess you can believe whatever you like.
Login or Register to post comments.