McCain: Afghanistan Not as Tough as Iraq

By: Dan Farber
Topics: Afghanistan

(CBS)

Sen. John McCain continued his lobby for a troop surge in Afghanistan as President Obama reconsiders his overall strategy for the region.

"It's not as tough as when the surge started in Iraq," McCain said today during an interview with NBC's David Gregory at The First Draft of History, a conference in Washington, D.C., produced by The Atlantic, the Newseum and The Aspen Institute.

"I am confident we can succeed if there are sufficient resources to do so. If we don't get sufficient manpower--men and women in uniform--then I think we could fail," he said.

McCain said that the strategy used in Iraq to clear and hold areas, and create an environment so that allowed citizens to return to normal life, could be applied to Afghanistan. "We could see signs of success in 18 months. If not we'll make a decision at that time," he said.

If the Congress and the president aren't willing to send more troops than the 68,000 currently deployed, McCain said he would rather get out of the Afghanistan.

McCain said that the people of Afghanistan don't support the Taliban, but noted that the American people are "very weary" and "understandably saddened by the tragic loss of life," and that corruption in Afghanistan presents obstacles to success.

"[President Hamid] Karzai is corrupt and we have to address that," McCain said. "Things were far worse in Iraq than in Afghanistan today -- we can't preserve our national security without dealing with Afghanistan."

On Wednesday, McCain said he would seek to have the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, and Gen. David Petraeus, head of Central Command, to testify before Congress. In a confidential report delivered to the Obama administration, Gen. McChrystal said that additional troops are needed within the next year or else the conflict "will likely result in failure."

See also:

60 Minutes: McChrystal's Frank Talk on Afghanistan
Advisers Divided on Afghan Troop Increase
On Afghan War, Obama Could Turn to GOP
Obama Officials Mull Future in Afghanistan
CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

More from the "First Draft of History" Conference:
Lindsey Graham Hits Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly
Geithner: Goal is not to Save People From Mistakes
Petraeus: Afghanistan is not Iraq or Vietnam
Doctor: U.S. Needs to Control "Tsunami of Obesity"

Daniel Farber is the editor-in-chief of CBSNews.com.

13 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment See all 13 Comments


by davidjo12 October 11, 2009 11:43 AM EDT: I haven't heard such nonsense since 1969. A victory against whom? McCain must be senile. We are not at "war". We are at "police action". We are at "occupation". In a war the enemy surrenders and the victor then rebuilds the previous enemy. In a police action there is no clear cut victory, just years and years of the same old stuff. We can maintain our presence and try to minimize our losses but it is silly to expect a victory.; Reply to this comment


by akinos2009 October 2, 2009 3:22 PM EDT: It was McCain that stated of a 30 years war e.i. with all of Asia and Africa. And that he had his boots on for walking across Siberia on his way to Moscow to confront Putin. He is in sympathy with the neocons and the Military-Industrial Complex.

Like wise with his running mate Palin who stated she could see Russia
from her house. That's about a 400 miles distance. Translation: she is aiming her weapon of military aggression at Russia just as soon as she gets into the White House. Kissy Kisinger coached her well.; Reply to this comment


by Oregon_State_OSU October 1, 2009 3:58 PM EDT: cptdeuce

Last I checked McCain was not on the Obama Cabnet or Currently President of the USA. Just because he is on the Armed Services Committee doesn't put him on the Obama Cabnet or allow him Daily access to the Generals Incharge.

Your ignorance and political biases are very clearly evident !; Reply to this comment


by wyodutch October 1, 2009 1:45 PM EDT: NATO troops occupy Afghanistan the same way the Soviet troops did... Riding in armored vehicles... Holed-up in walled compounds... Calling airstrikes and missile strikes onto mud huts. Massive firepower available with a quick radio request.
.
The Afghani fighters wear the same cotton shirts and sandals as they did when they were fighting and dieing to oust the Russians. They still fight without being paid... get wounded with no hospital to go to... are blasted to bloody shards that their families cannot identify... But still they fight on.
.
In order to fill the ranks... the American military now accepts around 8,000 foreign merceneries into the ranks each year... The U.S. Army convinced Congress to raise the maximum enlistment age to 42 (the Army wanted it to be 44, but Congress held the line at 42), because not enough young and able Americans think Afghanistan is worth coming home in a box or wheelchair.; Reply to this comment


by thebob-bob October 1, 2009 1:26 PM EDT: The Taleban and Al Q'da are not the same. If the Taliban had handed over Osama bin Ladin after 9/11, they would still be in power, repressing their people and fine tuning an extreme 14th century version of Islam and America wouldn't care.

McCain doesn't have a clue. America and the World can thank their lucky stars that the Grumpy Old Man and Caribou Barbie are not in the White House. Thank you, thank you, thank you.; Reply to this comment


by stn_sage October 1, 2009 12:49 PM EDT: He wants us to stay in Afghanistan another 18 months---at least?! He's mad!

He thinks it's not as bad as Iraq?! I dunno, it's very mountainous! Others have tried to tame Afghanistan for longer than we've been there, and they failed! So, why would we be successful?!

Once again, John McCain seems to me, to be a little 'out-of-touch' with reality on this issue!; Reply to this comment

by jsf14 October 1, 2009 12:38 PM EDT

Has McCain looked at topographic maps of the 2 countries? Or at their cultures?

Reply to this comment


by JBARON79 October 1, 2009 1:09 PM EDT: Wrong Ms Enza...
Alexander pushed THROUGH Afghanistan and into India. Do you know where that is??? EAST of Afghanistan!!!
He married an Afghani tribal elders daughter, and had a child with her. That's right, the successor to Alexander would have been a Greek/Afghani!!!!
After his battles in India he turned West back into Persia. Do you know where that is??? WEST of Afghanistan...
He was on his way to conquering Arabia(which he would have done had he not fell ill and died in Babylon.
Do you know where Babylon was??? 55 miles south of present day Baghdad.

As for Victoria, I believe there is still a United Kingdom....

And ole Ghengis Khan did not have his empire destroyed there. He pretty much stopped in Northern Persia. He also divided his empire between his sons. How was his empire destroyed???

Darius was defeated by Alexander....

As for the Soviets, it was a combination of factors, not soley by the Afghanis...

Get your facts STRAIGHT. Get your facts from books maybe even Wikipedia and not from other ignorant, pompious clowns.


by JBARON79 October 2, 2009 4:02 PM EDT: Ms_Enza "single? I wonder why..."
Nevermind that Alexander, Darius, Khan, Victoria, and Brezhnev have all ended their empires on the plains of Afghanistan...

Did you say that???

As I said, how did ANY ONE of their empires end on the PLAINS of Afghanistan? Which by the way America is lightly engaged, try the rugged eastern part of the country.

How did Alexander, who died in Babylon lose his empire? ILLNESS!

How did Victoria? UK is still around, NOT destroyed!

How about Ghengis? Sons inheriterd the empire!

Soviets? As I said a mix, MAINLY through US Military buildup and the US economy, (You'll love this... What party held the presidency from 81-93???) Though the Afghanis helped:)

Darius, fine I picked the wrong one... Persian empire did not end until ALEXANDER!!!

As I said get your facts straight...