Why JM doesn't understand the Afghanistan problem.

[rn79870]

It is clear that JM doesn’t the surge, the factors playing into the surge or the degree of success the surge has had.

He thinks ”more military” is the reason the surge has worked*. (Hint, not really)

He’s missed some major reasons behind it, and he’s missing some major reasons why it won’t work in Afghanistan.

...that security in Iraq has improved. Casualties, insurgent attacks, and roadside bombings have greatly diminished. However, the surge is not the only—and probably not the main—cause of these trends.

The biggest cause was the "Sunni Awakening," in which Sunni tribes reached out to form alliances with U.S. forces—at the tribal leaders' initiative, before the surge began—in order to beat back the Islamist jihadists of al-Qaida in Iraq, whom they had come to hate more than they hated the American occupiers. Petraeus promoted this development by paying other Sunni militiamen who joined their ranks. (He had pacified Mosul in just this way in the early days of the occupation, until the money ran out and the Bush administration didn't give him more, at which point Mosul went up in flames.)

JM, still citing that the surge is working, claims that it is just the thing for Afghanistan.

"It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan." Quoting John McCain.

Here is why JM’s millennium of military experience fails him (and potentially, the US)

The're two different things. Two different stories, with two different gameplans. I see it, why doesn't JM?

Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents are based mainly across the border in Pakistan. Iraq is urban, educated, and has great wealth, at least potentially, in its oil supplies; Afghanistan is rural, largely illiterate, and ranks as one of the world's five poorest countries. Iraq has some history as a cohesive nation (albeit as the result of a minority ruling sect oppressing the majority); Afghanistan never has and, given its geography, perhaps never will.

Moreover, the Taliban's insurgency is ideological, not ethno-sectarian (except incidentally). Therefore, while some warlords and tribes have allied themselves with the Taliban for opportunistic or nationalistic reasons, and therefore might be peeled away and co-opted, the conditions are not ripe for some sort of Taliban or Pashtun "Awakening." Nor is there any place where walls might isolate the insurgents.

One would think that a man claiming to be a great military mind would have spent the time to understand the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. He clearly didn’t. In this regard, he is dangerous. He’s dangerous because he assumes he understands. He assumes his experience is beneficial (even though, by military standards, his experience is ancient). His experience is closer to WWII than it is to today’s military.

He assumes his “vast” experience makes him capable of leading this country yet we see, almost daily, his gaffes and shoot from the hip misses on the major issues. (fundamentally strong economy to name one) He’s 1968 stuck in a 2008 world. He’s coming to the party 20 years too late. Sad but true.

http://www.slate.com/id/2200406/

*there is evidence that the surge really isn’t working. Feel free to start another thread if you disagree with that. - this thread addresses McCain's misunderstanding of the Afghan problem.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p....aspx

[S13_love]

He’s 1968 stuck in a 2008 world. He’s coming to the party 20 years too late. Sad but true.

I dont disagree at all with what you said about the Iraq and Afghanistan issue you said there.

What I quoted is what i feared about McCain since he became the nominee. I didn't want to believe that he was still stuck in the 60s-70s (military wise at least) but unfortunantely, you just have shown some evidence that he is.