[This is not a Palin diary, or a debate diary. There are a few other things going on in the world today.]
Gen. David McKiernan, who led the ground forces in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is now the top American commander in Afghanistan. Here is what he had to say about the two countries in Washington yesterday:
"Afghanistan is not Iraq. ... The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,' " McKiernan stressed, saying that what is required is a "sustained commitment" to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution. WaPo 2 Oct
But here is what McCain said in July:
McCain said in a July 2008 speech that the troop surge in Iraq should serve as a model for counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. He said he would implement an integrated "civil-military campaign plan that is focused on providing security for the population." Council on Foreign Relations [Emphasis added]
(H/t to Think Progress.)
Now, in fairness to McCain, he did call for counter-insurgency tactics, and said that he would not "wash his hands" of Afghanistan once we had a military victory. (A point tellingly made in Charlie Wilson's War.) But clearly he has no idea how to do this, other than to use the Iraq model, which he (and Palin) claim has already succeeded:
[Palin:] So again, I believe that a surge in Afghanistan also will lead us to victory there, as it has proven to have done in Iraq. (26 Sep)
General Petraeus, whom McCain is apparently infatuated with, doesn't see it that way in Iraq:
[Petraeus] said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan." BBC 11 Sep
And our man in Afghanistan doesn't see things McCain's way either.
Another facet of the Iraq strategy that McKiernan doubts can be duplicated in Afghanistan is the U.S. military's programs to recruit tribes to oppose insurgents. [WaPo story]
And for that matter, neither does Petraeus, who is now McKiernan's boss:
General Petraeus’s experience in Iraq has allowed him to develop a comprehensive approach to fighting the counterinsurgency. But the general was careful not to take any lessons from Iraq too hastily, and said he would not be directing things in Afghanistan and Pakistan with a "several-thousand-mile screwdriver" from Central Command.
"People often ask, ‘What did you learn from Iraq that might be transferable to Afghanistan?’ " [Petraeus] said. "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," he said. NY Times 1 Oct
As Patrick Berry describes Petraeus' remarks:
Let's be clear. Petraeus is not saying that there aren't things to be learned from Iraq that could be useful for Afghanistan. Quite the opposite. He readily admits that there may even be some concepts which translate well into the Afghan milieu, such as encouraging local reconciliation and empowering local actors to stand against the Taliban and al-Qaeda similar to the awakening councils in Iraq.
Yet even there, Petraeus' statements undercut McCain; for it is precisely those concepts from Iraq, which Petraeus says would work in Afghanistan - reconciliation and empowering local groups - that John McCain has repeatedly shown he doesn't understand. If McCain cannot grasp the teachings from Iraq that do apply to Afghanistan, how can he be expected to comprehend the more critical pieces of Afghanistan's strategic puzzle - the dependence on opium production; a larger and more entrenced [sic] tribal movement; damaging incursions emmanating [sic] from a country with which we are allied; and most troubling of all, a history of hostility to any kind of foreign intervention - that are totally unique. Democracy Arsenal 1 Oct
So when McCain says he has already relied on Palin for foreign policy advice, I think we can believe him.
McCain has tied his political fortunes to the surge and only the surge. He ignores (and I wish Obama would hit him harder on this) the "Anbar Awakening," the payments to the Sunni tribes, the unilateral cease-fire declared by Muqtada al-Sadr, and he also ignores the fact - which Obama has pointed out - that in political terms - the same terms McKiernan says are the deciding factor in Afgahnistan - the surge is not working. Iraq has still not moved any closer to the political goals the surge was supposed to buy them time to accomplish.
But McCain prefers to talk solely in military terms. That is the thinking of a pilot who sees war from high up and far away, and cannot see the use of non-military tools such as diplomacy and building relationships. And he can't even get his favorite generals - people who really do understand war on the ground - to back him up.