McCain reverses course on Afghanistan policy, follows Obama’s lead

While talking about the war in Afghanistan yesterday, John McCain predictably went after Barack Obama, saying Obama “has no strategy.” It was an odd attack, given the fact that McCain had just flip-flopped on his Afghanistan policy, and embraced Obama’s strategy as his own.

Here’s McCain yesterday, talking about his plan to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, in order to bring an Iraq-like strategy to the country.

The key quote, of course, was pretty straightforward: “[O]ur commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades. Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them.”

What’s important to realize, though, is that while Obama has been arguing for a year that he wants to send additional troops to Afghanistan, McCain has always held the opposite position, opposing the deployment of more U.S. troops, and arguing that any additional troops come from NATO.

Yesterday, however, McCain reversed course, change his position, and embraced Obama’s policy as his own. As Josh Marshall explained, “So let’s all say it out loud: McCain is now copying Obama’s position on Afghanistan. And with troops that he doesn’t have since he’s against pulling any out of Iraq.”

But it gets worse. McCain has actually held multiple positions on Afghanistan in the last seven days.

Last Tuesday, McCain did not want to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

By yesterday morning, McCain said he does want to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

Almost immediately after giving his speech — literally just minutes after the event — McCain said he didn’t exactly mean what he’d said in his prepared remarks, and argued that the additional troops could come from NATO, not U.S. forces.

And then a few hours later, McCain refined his policy a little more, saying the additional troops would come from NATO and U.S. forces.

Remember, the premise of John McCain’s presidential campaign is a) his expertise on foreign policy and national security; and b) his consistency.

By any reasonable measure, this had to be humiliating for McCain. Not only did he flip-flop on his policy, and not only did he borrow Obama’s policy as his own, but he had to keep clarifying what he actually meant.

Surely the media would jump all over this, right? Not so much. Very few news reports mentioned McCain’s switch, and even fewer noted that McCain embraced Obama’s policy. Time’s Mark Halperin offered an example of what’s wrong with campaign reporting:

[L]ook at the headline at Mark Halperin’s The Page: “Obama Acknowledges ‘Shift in Emphasis’ on Issues.”

And here’s Halperin’s gloss on McCain’s new Afghanistan strategy: McCain “highlights the success of the surge (and Obama’s opposition to it), says the troop increase strategies used in Iraq should also be applied to Afghanistan.”

It’s almost comical. It doesn’t fit the script so it didn’t happen.

Late Update: Okay, it’s 7:27 PM. And Halperin now has a headline noting that McCain is “supposedly adopting Obama’s position on troops in Afghanistan.” The key though is that the headline is prompted by an email the Obama campaign sent out to reporters at 6:41 PM (yeah, we got it too.) Did I mention it’s only “supposedly”?

Just out of curiousity, if Barack Obama had reversed course, flip-flopped on Afghanistan, and taken McCain’s policy as his own, do you suppose we might have heard more about it?

But he knows how to win wars. I have to ask, which war, or wars, was he involved in the winning of?

  • Just a couple of things

    McCain has actually held multiple positions on Afghanistan in the last seven days.

    I think you want a slash there ().

    Also if I were your copy editor CB (and I realize I am not) I would suggest that you reverse the headline on this post…

    “McCain follows Obama’s lead, reverses course on Afghanistan policy”

    That kind of sounds like Obama reversed course first, then McCain copied him and reversed course also. I would suggest…

    “McCain reverses course on Afghanistan policy, follows Obama’s lead.”

  • By any reasonable measure, this had to be humiliating for McCain. Not only did he flip-flop on his policy, and not only did he borrow Obama’s policy as his own, but he had to keep clarifying what he actually meant.

    This probably isn’t humiliating in the least. My mother-in-law had a great time last night watching a DVD with my wife. She had just as good a time on Sunday when she watched the same movie. She just doesn’t remember it.

    Her deer-in-the-headlights moments of confusion, her non-sequitors in the middle of a conversation and her insisting that things which never happened did happen look exactly like John McCain’s moments of what the media calls “jet lag”.

    Her condition, an early stage of the same form of dementia that Jesse Helms died from, is tragic. It is unthinkable in a presidential candidate.

  • By any reasonable measure, this had to be humiliating for McCain.

    Why would it be humiliating for him. As far as most of the world will ever know, it never happened. Look, you have been very good at pointing out McCain’s obvious shifts in positions and just general crappiness but I thin we need to begin to come to terms with the fact that the mainstream press will not ever be pointing out any of these issues for their reader and viewers. Even the Obama campaign seems slow to publicize McCain’s gaping errors and flaws. Not sure what the solution is but, at this point, we are yelling into a void.

  • “By any reasonable measure, this had to be humiliating for McCain.”

    Not with the merry band of protectors AKA news outlets who will go to any lengths to protect this doddering and befuddled old fart from any humiliation. Allowing an aged US senator to be humiliated when he’s just minding his own business campaigning is just un-American!

  • Steve – I have to agree with Haik. Your headline implies that Obama has reversed course.

    Great article, great links for attribution. Thanks, Iron Man.

  • “Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available…”

    Is that due to success or due to the definition of “surge”? That is, now that the temporary increase in troops in Iraq is over, the brigades that were part of that increase are free to be assigned elsewhere. Except they aren’t, because they’ve got scheduled downtime between deployments.

  • McCain wants to give America another four years of Bush, with policies that are about as effective as painting your house in a rainstorm. It just gets watered down more and more, to the point of not sticking to the house at all; it turns the ground around it into a toxic disaster; it leaves a really big mess that needs to be cleaned up.

    Adopting Obama’s strategy is nothing more than promising that the rain won’t wash the paint off the house—while the rain is washing the paint off the house. We know the promise is no good, and so does he—but he’ll make it, all the same, because he’s John McCain, and we’re not supposed to disrespect our heroes.

    Right. Benedict Arnold was a hero, too, once upon a time—until he traded common sense for treason….

  • Did I mention it’s only “supposedly”?

    Of course, it’s only “supposedly”; how’s Halperin supposed to know what Obama’s position on troops in Afghanistan is?

  • I “did a Google” to see McCain’s position on the Kosovo action, just to see how his “I know how to win a war” statement held up.
    What a suprise, the press was fluffing hm in April 1999, too. Here’s a clip from this CNN article:

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/23/kosovo.republicans/

    “Perhaps the most outspoken Republican on Capitol Hill has been Arizona Sen. John McCain. McCain, who spent five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has been a vocal critic of Clinton’s policy in Kosovo, supporting instead a “use all necessary force and other means,” including U.S. ground troops strategy.

    McCain’s stand on Kosovo seems to have struck a chord with the American people. In a poll conducted April 15-18 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 17 percent of those questioned said they had knowledge of McCain’s thinking — the highest score of any GOP presidential hopeful.”

    So, he was ready to send in American troops (although not necessary), and this “struck a chord with the American people” ? Note, just because the polled participants KNEW of McCain’s position, did they AGREE with him? Gee, they didn’t say that, did they?

    McCain, wrong on Kosovo, and no, he does not know how to win wars.

  • John McCain wasted three planes during his training, graduated at the bottom 99.99th of his class at Annapolis, did poorly in Mathematics, and thus contributed to the United States losing the Viet Nam War.

    Does America really need someone who was a military failure—who helped lose the Viet Nam War—as president? I don’t think so.

    There’s your soundbyte for the hawks, people—John McCain helped America lose the Viet Nam War.

  • JS said: “If John McCain knows how to win wars, why doesn’t he tell his mentor – George Bush?”

    If John Sidney McC*nt knew in 2003 that we needed more troops to “WIN” in Iraq, then he was wrong in 2002 to support the war with less troops given General Sinseki told the Congress we would need several hundred thousand troops, but McC*nt supported the Rumsfeld/Franks plan to go in hard and fast and leave a mess in their wake (looting ministries and museams, etc.).

    If John Sidney McC*nt knew in 2003 that we needed more troops to “WIN” in Iraq why did the General Casey Occupation plan (hide in big bases and try to reduce American casualties from 3 a day to 3 a week to 3 a month (read George F. Will during 2004 or 2005 and he’ll spout that plan at you) ) pervail when we needed to get out there in the neighborhoods to reduce anti-Iraqi violence?

    If John Sidney McC*nt knew in 2003 that we needed more troops to “WIN” in Iraq why wasn’t until the Republican’ts lost the 2006 election and the Iraqi Study Group proposed we start leaving Iraq that the Bushites finally embraced a temporary increase of troops to the very limit of the Army’s ability to provide them, a “Surge” that is now over and which achieved only the supposed pre-condition to actual progress, that is, achieving security so that political reconcilation could be made?

    John Sidney (5’9″) McC*nt didn’t know how to win in Vietnam (nor did his Dad, who was actually in charge of winning Vietnam) and he doesn’t know how to win against al Qaeda.

  • Viet Nam talk is a loser for our side.
    Anyone with a brain knows that we did not lose, because a foreign power cannot lose or win in another country’s civil war.

    Wingnuts (i.e. thinking has nothing to do with reality) KNOW, yes they KNOW that it was the Dirty F*cking Hippies (DFH) that caused the US to “lose” in Viet Nam.
    Suggestions of anything other than their worldview has as much chance of penetrating their perceptions as McCain has of carrying a majority of the black vote this year.

  • John McCain’s attempt to state his position on anything reminds me of one of my favorite lines from “Strange Brew”:

    “Well, uh, just because I don’t know what it is, it doesn’t mean I’m lying.”

  • McCain has actually held multiple positions on Afghanistan in the last seven days. — CB
    and:
    Surely the media would jump all over this, right? Not so much. Very few news reports mentioned McCain’s switch[…] — CB

    Well, how could they have even noticed, when it happened so fast? McCain is getting to the point where his position switches are coming so close together it’s hard to keep track of them. Reminds me of the old joke about a crazy man who thought he was a clock and went tick…tock…, tick…tock…, tick…tock… all the time. But then, someone told him he was late, so he went tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.

    It’s one thing to adjust one’s thinking depending on the reality of on the ground conditions. But McCain seems to “adjust” faster than reality…

  • Comments are closed.