This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Should Obama be king?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- i want to read more diverse/different
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- I like my female teacher and I'm a female
- Most women want to be bad girls in 2023.
- My grow your grades journal 🎀 ~ as a year 12
- I turn 18 today! AMA (07/06/2023)
- essay question - sociology
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Make it More Armed Forces-ey !!
- How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?
- who is donald trump
- Revision for LPC?! Help!!
- Financial Planner vs Financial Advisor which is better from my preferences on a job??
- GCSE results
- Economics And Management
- Is seneca good for A level?
- Control freak parents/ Controlling parents. Being treated differently to siblings
McCain: Obama's plan 'not enough'
Sen. John McCain Friday denounced President Obama's new plan for sending more troops to Afghanistan, saying it was "not enough" and suggesting the president should have been clearer that there will be more troop casualties.
The Arizona Republican who ran against Mr. Obama last year said he was glad the president put the issue front and center, but worried Mr. Obama hadn't offered a realistic enough picture of the likely increase in casualties that can be expected with the surge of troops.
"The president talked about how tough it is, but I would have begun and ended this speech with how difficult it's going to be and that things are going to get worse before they get better," he said.
Mr. Obama Friday announced he was sending 4,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, joining the 17,000 new troops he sent earlier this year. Mr. Obama also proposed tripling U.S. nonmilitary aid and boosting the diplomatic effort with a push for more civilian help in the region. The troop levels aren't rigid, and there will be ongoing reviews of the policy, administration advisers said.
"There's a little bit of incrementalism in that, that could make the decision tougher this fall when the situation is tougher," Mr. McCain said in an interview with editors and reporters at The Washington Times.
Mr. McCain said he'd send three additional brigades, or around 40,000 additional troops, and suggested a 250,000-person Afghan army instead of the 134,000-strong army the administration aims for.
The Republican said while he appreciates allies who are helping with the effort, some allies have "almost laughable" restrictions on where they will operate. For example, German troops won't go south in the region, he said.
"It's American leadership, it's going to be American military effectiveness working with Afghans that win or lose," he said.
Mr. McCain also criticized the new administration's approach on Pakistan, saying because it is such a large country and is nuclear armed, it deserves a separate plan instead of the merged regional plan Mr. Obama presented with a goal of rooting out the Taliban and purging al Qaeda.
Mr. McCain also told The Times the economy factors into the war policy for both the United States and its European allies.
Asked his benchmark for success in Afghanistan, Mr. McCain said he measures that on the country not able to be a base for terrorist attacks and having a functioning government with a political and economic path to sustained security.
Mr. McCain agreed the Afghan population lives primarily in rural areas, the opposite of the situation in Iraq, but said despite the differing terrain the strategy would not need to be so different.
He said the top priority must be securing the environment for the Afghan people, noting that because an insurgent can only walk 12 miles per night, platoons could set up between towns and not in every town.
Sen. John McCain (File Photo)
Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC
The Arizona Republican who ran against Mr. Obama last year said he was glad the president put the issue front and center, but worried Mr. Obama hadn't offered a realistic enough picture of the likely increase in casualties that can be expected with the surge of troops.
"The president talked about how tough it is, but I would have begun and ended this speech with how difficult it's going to be and that things are going to get worse before they get better," he said.
Mr. Obama Friday announced he was sending 4,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, joining the 17,000 new troops he sent earlier this year. Mr. Obama also proposed tripling U.S. nonmilitary aid and boosting the diplomatic effort with a push for more civilian help in the region. The troop levels aren't rigid, and there will be ongoing reviews of the policy, administration advisers said.
"There's a little bit of incrementalism in that, that could make the decision tougher this fall when the situation is tougher," Mr. McCain said in an interview with editors and reporters at The Washington Times.
Mr. McCain said he'd send three additional brigades, or around 40,000 additional troops, and suggested a 250,000-person Afghan army instead of the 134,000-strong army the administration aims for.
The Republican said while he appreciates allies who are helping with the effort, some allies have "almost laughable" restrictions on where they will operate. For example, German troops won't go south in the region, he said.
"It's American leadership, it's going to be American military effectiveness working with Afghans that win or lose," he said.
Mr. McCain also criticized the new administration's approach on Pakistan, saying because it is such a large country and is nuclear armed, it deserves a separate plan instead of the merged regional plan Mr. Obama presented with a goal of rooting out the Taliban and purging al Qaeda.
Mr. McCain also told The Times the economy factors into the war policy for both the United States and its European allies.
Asked his benchmark for success in Afghanistan, Mr. McCain said he measures that on the country not able to be a base for terrorist attacks and having a functioning government with a political and economic path to sustained security.
Mr. McCain agreed the Afghan population lives primarily in rural areas, the opposite of the situation in Iraq, but said despite the differing terrain the strategy would not need to be so different.
He said the top priority must be securing the environment for the Afghan people, noting that because an insurgent can only walk 12 miles per night, platoons could set up between towns and not in every town.
Sen. John McCain (File Photo)
Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC
Scroll to see replies
Neo Con
I have to agree to be honest. I trust a veteran of nam anyway over Obama and his fancy words.
It's a shame that nam only paralysed him, and didn't finish the job off..
But tbh they're both ridiculous.. I though Obama said there was 'no military solution,' and now he send in more troops
weflycars
It's a shame that nam only paralysed him, and didn't finish the job off..
But tbh they're both ridiculous.. I though Obama said there was 'no military solution,' and now he send in more troops
But tbh they're both ridiculous.. I though Obama said there was 'no military solution,' and now he send in more troops
How can you make fun of Senator McCain? He is a very brave man who gave his all, very patriotic!!
In all fairness I agree with him in principle of sending more troops to Afghanistan but I don't like the way he is going about it. Plus I hated the way he was sucking iranian **** on a national plea to the iranian government to not be so mean
Well considering Iran could potentially be building nuclear weapons, for use again the US, i dont think it is such a bad idea. The media in Iran is state ran and therefore they can pump whatever propaganda they want into peoples minds, and shape their attitudes towards the west, partly why so many feel hatred to the west. With the increase of internet users, more likely by educated Iranians, Obamas message is more likely to be taken seriously and the word spread throughout the Iranian population.
eyes on
Well considering Iran could potentially be building nuclear weapons, for use again the US, i dont think it is such a bad idea. The media in Iran is state ran and therefore they can pump whatever propaganda they want into peoples minds, and shape their attitudes towards the west, partly why so many feel hatred to the west. With the increase of internet users, more likely by educated Iranians, Obamas message is more likely to be taken seriously and the word spread throughout the Iranian population.
Only gullible people fall for their propaganda, like liberals. Everyone knows they are in the wrong. Obama's approach is stupid.
McCain said he would declare war on Iran if they didn't comply. I agree, iran should be given a month to sort themselves out or blow the crap out of them.
Neo Con
How can you make fun of Senator McCain? He is a very brave man who gave his all, very patriotic!!
In all fairness I agree with him in principle of sending more troops to Afghanistan but I don't like the way he is going about it. Plus I hated the way he was sucking iranian **** on a national plea to the iranian government to not be so mean
In all fairness I agree with him in principle of sending more troops to Afghanistan but I don't like the way he is going about it. Plus I hated the way he was sucking iranian **** on a national plea to the iranian government to not be so mean
Sarge, it's refreshing that an American president (especially after Bush) is willing to talk to Iran and show them some respect; it's a step in the right direction.
Neo Con
iran should be given a month to sort themselves out or blow the crap out of them.
North Korea, perhaps China would then weigh in, and as far-fetched as this sounds, it could be a move towards World War 3. You only need to look at the small events that built up and led towards World War 2 and you realise that it doesn't take much. By 'blow(ing) the crap out of them' I assume you mean use nuclear weapons, that would open the floodgates. Quite frankly I'm **** scared for the day when one country uses a nuclear weapon against another, it would be an act of war.eyes on
Well then alot of the population must be gullible...most people dont know any different!
You obviously dont have a very educated opinion, seeing as 'Blowing the crap' out of Iran would almost certainly turn the whole middle east against the US and western world
You obviously dont have a very educated opinion, seeing as 'Blowing the crap' out of Iran would almost certainly turn the whole middle east against the US and western world
Oh I am educated
I care more about protecting western civilization than some moron hating the US. His opinion doesn't mattter to me. NewsFlash-they already hated the US since they existed 
Another point you are missing, is that it is only a minority of people who take extreme views against the West, so why should millions of other people die?
You take a rather simple approach to solving world issues, just like McCain, who is a **** and shouldnt even be in any authority.
Anyway end of...you clearly like throwing in a contraversial opinion on things
You take a rather simple approach to solving world issues, just like McCain, who is a **** and shouldnt even be in any authority.
Anyway end of...you clearly like throwing in a contraversial opinion on things
eyes on
Another point you are missing, is that it is only a minority of people who take extreme views against the West, so why should millions of other people die?
You take a rather simple approach to solving world issues, just like McCain, who is a **** and shouldnt even be in any authority.
Anyway end of...you clearly like throwing in a contraversial opinion on things
You take a rather simple approach to solving world issues, just like McCain, who is a **** and shouldnt even be in any authority.
Anyway end of...you clearly like throwing in a contraversial opinion on things
This kind of argument does nothing but neuter the Western world with regards to national security threats. Civilians die in wars... it happens... but the fact they die shouldn't mean nations should risk their own civilians. The world would have no wars if every nation were elected by their peace loving people... because who honestly votes for war without being desperate already?
PeeWeeDan
This kind of argument does nothing but neuter the Western world with regards to national security threats. Civilians die in wars... it happens... but the fact they die shouldn't mean nations should risk their own civilians. The world would have no wars if every nation were elected by their peace loving people... because who honestly votes for war without being desperate already?
How is America risking it's own civillians?
By the way, how are the rockets
I just find it interesting how one of Obama's platforms was how he was ending the war and bringing the troops home...now the SAME anti-war protestors who rallied against Bush are calling Obama a "War Monger" lol...these people were singing Obama's praises a few months ago talking about how he was bringing "change" and "hope"...he doesn't even believe in gay marriage. Frankly, he's turning out to be the biggest let down for his supporters and opponents. All he does is strut and hold press conferences!
Related discussions
- Should Obama be king?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- i want to read more diverse/different
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- I like my female teacher and I'm a female
- Most women want to be bad girls in 2023.
- My grow your grades journal 🎀 ~ as a year 12
- I turn 18 today! AMA (07/06/2023)
- essay question - sociology
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Make it More Armed Forces-ey !!
- How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?
- who is donald trump
- Revision for LPC?! Help!!
- Financial Planner vs Financial Advisor which is better from my preferences on a job??
- GCSE results
- Economics And Management
- Is seneca good for A level?
- Control freak parents/ Controlling parents. Being treated differently to siblings
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
