About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Several print outlets noted that McCain proposed sending three brigades of troops to Afghanistan, but not that McCain's tally would reportedly include NATO forces

July 17, 2008 6:13 pm ET

SUMMARY: The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Wall Street Journal reported that Sen. John McCain, in the words of the Journal, "said he would send at least three additional brigades to Afghanistan." But none noted that McCain reportedly stated following his speech that his proposal to deploy three additional brigades to Afghanistan would require "greater participation on the part of our NATO allies," or that McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace reportedly said the three brigades he mentioned would include non-American troops.

33 Comments

July 16 articles by The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported that during a July 15 speech in New Mexico, Sen. John McCain, in the words of the Journal, "said he would send at least three additional brigades to Afghanistan." But none of those print outlets noted that McCain reportedly stated following his speech that his proposal to deploy three additional brigades to Afghanistan would require "greater participation on the part of our NATO allies," or that McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace reportedly said the three brigades he mentioned would include non-American troops.

During his speech, McCain asserted: "Our 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." In a July 16 article, The Boston Globe reported that "[t]he wording of McCain's speech implied that all of the new forces would be US troops." Yet, in a July 15 post on the NBC News blog First Read, NBC/National Journal reporter Adam Aigner-Treworgy and NBC deputy political director Mark Murray reported that when asked following his speech whether the three brigades he proposed deploying to Afghanistan would include NATO forces, McCain reportedly replied: "We need to work that out. We need to have greater participation on the part of our NATO allies, as I said in my opening remarks today and we need a lot more help." Aigner-Treworgy and Murray also reported that during a conference call that day, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said, "Sen. McCain is looking for an additional three [brigades], some of which may come from NATO, some could be the US." From the July 15 First Read post:

[W]hile speaking to reporters on his bus after this morning's town hall, McCain would not commit to whether those additional brigades would definitely be American ones. When asked if the three brigades would come from the United States or NATO, McCain said: "We need to work that out. We need to have greater participation on the part of our NATO allies, as I said in my opening remarks today and we need a lot more help."

Later, McCain added that he planned to press the members of NATO for "increased materiel" and "assistance in the form of personnel," as well as assistance centralizing the military command structure in the region and performing "civil military kind of work" that has worked in Iraq. He then reiterated that additional combat troops are just another area where NATO could help.

"There are many areas where our NATO allies can help us," McCain said. "That's one of them."

On a conference call today, in response to a question on where the troops to Afghanistan would come from, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said, according to a transcript of the call: "The most immediate way to make those troops available is to ask our NATO allies to step up to the plate and send more troops. When Sen. McCain is sworn in as president, if he wins this election, it will be different rotational schedule and additional brigades will be available. We have 53 brigades or brigade equivalents in the Army and Marine Corps right now. Eighteen are deployed. Sen. McCain is looking for an additional three, some of which may come from NATO, some could be the US."

When First Read asked a senior McCain official what would happen if NATO allies decided not to contribute to an Afghanistan surge, the official replied that McCain "preferred to get as many as possible from NATO allies." But if US commanders needed three brigades, and the only troops he could send were American ones, then he'd send three American brigades, the officials said.

In addition, in a July 15 entry on the The Washington Post blog The Trail, Post staff writer Juliet Eilperin reported that McCain "told reporters just minutes after the event that he might call on NATO to supply part of the additional troops he hopes to send to the region," and that Wallace "said later that U.S. troops will compose some of the additional brigades McCain would send to Afghanistan, but not all of them." From Eilperin's July 15 post on The Trail:

In an interview with reporters aboard his campaign bus, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) modified his assertion today that the U.S. could send three additional brigades to Afghanistan by drawing on troops that were leaving Iraq.

The presumptive GOP nominee, who made his initial remarks in a speech before an Albuquerque audience, told reporters just minutes after the event that he might call on NATO to supply part of the additional troops he hopes to send to the region.

"We need to work that out, we need to have greater participation from our NATO allies, and we need a lot more help from our NATO allies," the senator said. "We need to -- I laid it out in my speech, we need to have strategy, not just an injection of troops. I think that's true of all counterinsurgencies."

Our NATO allies, he added, can provide manpower as well as other resources to help assure victory in Afghanistan.

"I think we need to work with our allies to get increased materiel, command structure reform, assistance in the form of personnel," he said, adding some of these personnel can conduct the kind of "civil military kind of work that we ware doing in Iraq where we are restoring goods and services to the people. There are many areas where our NATO allies can help us, that's one of them."

McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace said later that U.S. troops will compose some of the additional brigades McCain would send to Afghanistan, but not all of them. "Will we contribute? Of course we will," she said.

Los Angeles Times staff writers Peter Nicholas and Robin Abcarian reported that Obama "repeated his call for two more combat brigades in Afghanistan to counteract 'deteriorating' conditions," while McCain "upped the ante Tuesday, pledging three more brigades." Journal staff writers Amy Chozick and Jay Solomon reported that "Sen. McCain said he would send at least three additional brigades to Afghanistan." New York Times staff writers John M. Broder and Larry Rohter reported that McCain "advocated the deployment of an additional three brigades, or about 15,000 troops." Inquirer senior writer Larry Eichel reported that McCain "called for sending three more brigades there about 10,000 troops." None of those reports noted McCain or his campaign's subsequent statements asserting that a portion of the three brigades he proposed sending to Afghanistan would at least likely be partially composed of NATO troops.

From the New York Times article:

Mr. McCain said that both Iraq and Afghanistan were important battlegrounds and that the United States had the ability to fight in both places as long as it retained the will to do so. But on Tuesday, after saying for months that no additional forces were needed in Afghanistan, Mr. McCain changed course and advocated the deployment of an additional three brigades, or about 15,000 troops.

[...]

In a series of interviews, statements, advertisements and speeches over the past week, Mr. Obama has been laying out a broad vision of America's role in the world in an Obama presidency. He has spoken of reducing American combat forces in Iraq and adding as many as 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has emphasized the application of so-called soft power, the use of diplomacy and economic aid, over the use of force. And he said that as president he would try to mend alliances that have frayed in the seven years of the Bush-Cheney administration.

From the Los Angeles Times article:

As the Iraq war winds down, Obama said, he wants to see troops redirected to Afghanistan. He said the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda was a war "we have to win" and repeated his call for two more combat brigades in Afghanistan to counteract "deteriorating" conditions.

John McCain, Obama's rival, upped the ante Tuesday, pledging three more brigades as part of a broader plan to "turn around the war." It is the first time the Arizona senator has been specific, but he has previously called for an increase in NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan has recently turned more deadly than the one in Iraq. On Sunday, nine American soldiers were killed in a brazen insurgent attack on an outpost, the largest number of U.S. deaths in a single incident in Afghanistan since June 2005.

From the Wall Street Journal article:

Both presidential hopefuls said they would boost resources to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Sen. Obama said he would add at least two additional combat brigades in Afghanistan and $1 billion in annual nonmilitary assistance. Sen. McCain said he would send at least three additional brigades to Afghanistan and strengthen local tribes in border areas in Pakistan that are willing to fight foreign terrorists.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer article:

On Afghanistan, McCain had the more detailed proposals. It was the focus of his remarks yesterday.

He called for sending three more brigades there about 10,000 troops; for expanding the U.S. troop presence in the southern part of the country, the Taliban heartland; for creating a single supreme commander of allied forces; for establishing a czar for Afghanistan issues within the White House; and for doubling the size of the Afghan army to 160,000 troops.

Obama was less specific, addressing the subject as one part of a broad foreign-policy speech. He did say he would send at least two additional combat brigades to the country, about 7,000 troops, and seek additional troop commitments from other NATO countries.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mefirst (July 17, 2008 6:19 pm ET)
         

      apparently mccain is a genius now, because he was "right" about the surge.  but i seem to remember some predictions about iraq.  we would be greeted as liberators, we would be in and out in no time, it would all be paid for with iraqi oil.  seems like none of those things happened. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by philib (July 18, 2008 8:58 am ET)
           
           McCain isn't Bush. As hard as it is for liberals to understand that. McCain has military experience and knowledge. You can blame any future fault with the war on terror on Bush all you want, but this pro-republican article on the wisdom of McCain certainly shows that he ISN'T Bush.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cstearns3921 (July 18, 2008 10:24 am ET)
           
        Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, you should admit admit the surge worked?  The majority of the Iraqi people do consider us as liberators, and if you don't believe that, talk to the vast number of troops who will tell you that!  The troops know what great strides have been made in Iraq, it is simply not reported by the liberal media. And as far as the original timetable goes, Bush had the history of Desert Storm to make that determination.....no one expected the amount of foreign insurgents. Not an exuse, just fact.   One more thing, do you despise Clinton for sending troops to Bosnia for "only 6 months" (they are still there)...?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by my4cents (July 18, 2008 1:24 pm ET)
             
          Why is Fox News not reporting it? It is liberal too?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (July 18, 2008 3:02 pm ET)
             

          You think you might present any evidence to support your thoughts. How many of the items connected to the surge have been accomplished?

          Supporting the surg is not supporting the troops. Supporting a bunch of chickenhawks who if they've been right about anything of international aspect, its escaped me, has more to do with ideology than reality

          Careful on certain accusations. Many vetrans post here, many including myself are Nam era, both volunteers and draftees.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (July 19, 2008 7:12 am ET)
             
          cstearns presents the remarkable ability to reduce complex issues to the most simplistic drivel.   bush based his iraq timetable on desert storm, the invasion of kuwait?   uh, the problem with that is kicking iraq troops out of kuwait in 1991 was not comparable to taking over and stabilizing the country of iraq.   all junior bush had to do was ask poppy bush.  because poppy said that was the reason he did not go to baghdad in 1991.  he clearly foresaw all the problems.  and there were no "foreign insurgents" in iraq prior to our invasion.  the fact is that all those original predictions about how easy it all would be turned out to be wildly off base.  
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (July 19, 2008 7:17 am ET)
               
            and as far as the surge "working",  i said at the time that it would probably reduce the violence by bringing in more troops.  that does not mean that the idea to invade was a good one.  it wasn't.   a huge waste of resources and american lives.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by sandss981580 (July 17, 2008 6:25 pm ET)
         

      what does that have to do with nato troops.  what's wrong with having nato troops, except they won't fight and won't do the heavy lifting.  they don't have the political will to do what needs to be done.

      as nathan sharansky says, they have democracy but no identity, and so are weak.  that's why it is only a matter of time before the ululators take them over.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (July 17, 2008 7:00 pm ET)
           

        And all of a sudden we have the political will to get the job done in Afghanistan?

        The sorry group in charge of the Executive Branch decided that going after the people responsible for attacking us from Afghanistan just wasn't important enough to finish the first time.

        I was always under the impression that one of America's best qualities was our ability to do it right the first time.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by sandss981580 (July 17, 2008 7:01 pm ET)
             
          where did you get that notion from
          Report Abuse
          • Author by philib (July 19, 2008 9:41 am ET)
               
               He fought in the Viet Nam war. So he knows first hand how effective military strategy is when given by US military superiors. We all saw how well they fought against viet cong, and the resulting ending to that debacle.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (July 19, 2008 5:52 pm ET)
                 
              we were not defeated militarily by either the viet cong or the north vietnamese army, as the french were.   they took over after we left, and the fact is that it was not the end of the world as so many predicted it would be.   just like now in iraq.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (July 17, 2008 7:28 pm ET)
         

      First of all, mmfa fails to stake out a position and state the reasons for their angst over McCain's NATO statement. This is a non-issue and just serves to highlight mmfa creeping in the shadows and practicing the only journalism they know...political sniper fire from the safety of dark alleys and rooftops. 

      Brock and company rolled out a highly publicized website, Progessive Media USA a few months back...with the goal of participating in the blogger's world and actually...well maybe...going on record with their political opinions. It crashed faster than air america. So much for having the political guts to enter the media fray...now it's just back to their old hackneyed ploy of taking pot shots at everyone else...while remaining on the bench.

      Secondly, it's a non-issue because neither of these two bohunks running for president will become CIC until 2009. I guess we can just sit on our cods until one of these brilliant military tacticians becomes president...next year...I'm sure the commanders in theater won't mind the delay. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (July 17, 2008 8:45 pm ET)
           
        no guts?  firing from dark alleys?   when was that?  you have the ability to come here, read what they write, and criticize if you wish.  a little cheese with that whine?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 17, 2008 8:35 pm ET)
         

      Both Air America and Progressive Media seem curiously healthy Wesley. What clues did I miss. MMfa takes no positions other than to say this is conservative missinformation.

      As always you then have the op to cry BS. Seemly you try continuously to expand their writ beyond that to some feckless actions which have no connection to their stated purpose. Pretzel logic. If they, beyond the usual editorialists, have a position on something I'm sure this opinion will be plainly stated. Not winnowed out and interpreted from of a series of unrelatedd actions.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (July 17, 2008 9:07 pm ET)
         

       -- What clues did I miss --eweston

      Several:

       -- Progressive Media Action has reported returning $2 million in contributions it had received to do battle with Republican presidential candidate John McCain. It's quite a turnaround for a group that had loudly announced a $40 million campaign to influence the 2008 election...But after the big roll-out, PMA pulled its own plug. -- NPR Jul08

       -- I've just confirmed that Progessive Media U.S.A. -- the independent party group that was formed to great fanfare by David Brock to bludgeon McCain with ad spending before Obama put the kibosh on such outside expenditures -- has now officially reconstituted itself as a new group devoted to researching and tracking John McCain. -- Politico Jul08

       -- Progressive Media USA, which hadn't met its ambition of serving as a conduit for millions of dollars in attacks on John McCain, is being folded into two other organizations, the organization's deputy director, Tara McGuinness -- Politico Jun08

      air america...yep, alive and well...thundering out that liberal message from about 60 stations nationwide...LOL. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (July 17, 2008 9:46 pm ET)
           

        There's probably the heart break of Phoryisis in there some where too.

        In other words, I think your overacting, under answering, assuming you have the credibility to have your statements declared true because of their obviously superior source. Just in case, that source was? 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (July 17, 2008 9:35 pm ET)
         
      McCain has talked about winning the war in Iraq.  He has said he won't surrender.  I think he is a blustering fool since the best we could hope for would be a phyrric victory.  The costs have been and continue to ruin the US economically.  The Iraq country has been ravaged into ruination. Depleted Uranium from bombing has polluted the landscape.  We have contributed to civilian deaths in Iraq as well as mass migration from homes.  Anyone who supports the continuation of this "war" or occupation has no clue.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 17, 2008 10:15 pm ET)
         

      Such ignorance in so few words. I'm in awe.

      Read, God's Crucible, Islam and the making of europe 570-1215 by David Levering Lewis. It will easily inform you of your ignorance in the privacy of your own home. Once through it you might accually say some thing that has some credibility on the subject. But I'm not taking any bets on it. Its so much fun being aggressivily ignorant isn't it?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (July 18, 2008 11:52 am ET)
           

        Someone flagged the ignorance to which the above was directed.

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (July 17, 2008 11:31 pm ET)
         

      I guess it's worth noting here, that there's no such thing as "NATO troops": There are Troops who serve in the Armed Forces of the various nations that are members of NATO, but they are every last one of them Troops wearing the uniform of their nation's Armed Forces (there's no such a thing as a "NATO uniform")... and those Troops are deployed by their own chain of Command, in the service of their own nation.

      The point here is, that John McCain, rather than just toss out the meaningless term "NATO troops", should be specific, and say exactly what nation or nations it is, that he thinks should commit more of its Troops to Afghanistan.

      And if you follow these things and know the member nations of NATO, then you'll probably realize that if John McCain would be specific when he talks about "NATO troops", he must mean Troops from the United Kingdom.

      He could mean Italian Troops also, Polish Troops, Ukranian Troops (Ukraine joins NATO this December), Bulgarian Troops, or maybe Spanish Troops: they are the only NATO nations that have contributed significant numbers of Troops to IRAQ, and in fact their contributions aren't very significant at all, compared to the United Kingdom's...

      So John McCain must mean U.K. Troops when he uses the meaningless term "NATO troops", and says:

      "we need to have greater participation from our NATO allies" 

       

      I think I know why he wasn't specific, and didn't say Troops from the U.K. (or Italy or Poland or the Ukraine etc.)...

      Because if he said the specific names of the nations he wants to send as many as 15,000 Troops from, to Afghanistan, then somebody in those nations might have responded in public (maybe the Troops themselves), and said across the North Atlantic:

      "Screw You John McCain!"

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.