Candidates do battle over war policy

Barack Obama, soon to depart on a tour that will include America's war zones, sparred with John McCain yesterday over U.S. policy in Iraq while expressing agreement over several aspects of what to do in Afghanistan.

Both candidates said they supported giving more nonmilitary assistance to the Afghan government, deploying thousands of additional U.S. troops there, and working to create an economy that did not rely on the drug trade.

The presumptive major-party nominees also called for creating a stronger partnership with Pakistan to help control the parts of that country bordering al-Qaeda and Taliban sites in Afghanistan.

But they disagreed vehemently over the linkage between the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and their relative importance to America's long-term security.

Obama, in a foreign-policy address that served to clarify and consolidate past positions rather than lay out new ground, said that Afghanistan should have been the priority all along. "The central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was . . . ," he said.

"Sen. McCain said - just months ago - that Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq. I could not disagree more," the Democrat said in Washington, calling for a "responsible redeployment" of troops.

"And that's why, as president, I will make the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

McCain responded at a town-hall meeting in Albuquerque, N.M., arguing that Obama did not understand the close connections between the two wars, in terms of strategies and outcomes.

"Sen. Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq," said the Republican. "In fact, he has it exactly backward. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. . . .

"With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are not disconnected. Success breeds success, and failure breeds failure."

With Obama leaving in a few days for his first visit to Iraq in 21/2 years - a trip that is expected to include Afghanistan, the Middle East, and several European countries - the contenders took oral shots at each other on the Iraq war as well.

Obama reiterated his commitment to begin withdrawing U.S. troops immediately upon his taking office at a pace that would in 16 months remove all but a residual force of unspecified size. He cited the call from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for a withdrawal timetable.

"So let's be clear," Obama said. "Sen. McCain would have our troops continue to fight tour after tour of duty, and our taxpayers keep spending $10 billion a month indefinitely. I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability. That's victory. That's success."

McCain touted what he described as the overwhelmingly positive impact of the surge in Iraq - a strategy he urged on the Bush administration - and chastised Obama for recommitting to a detailed plan of action just before visiting the region.

"In my experience," McCain said, "fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."

Two new polls show how divided Americans are over how to proceed in Iraq, and how essential that division is to McCain's prospects.

While Obama leads McCain on numerous issues, the two candidates are about even in terms of who is the more trusted to deal with Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

In another survey, by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, respondents were asked whether they favored withdrawing troops from Iraq within 18 months (similar to Obama's proposal) or keeping them there until the situation is more stable (as McCain advocates).

Respondents chose McCain's position, 51 percent to 43 percent; in the survey, the candidates' names were not attached to their positions.

In the Washington Post-ABC News poll, a similar question was asked with the candidate's names attached; 50 percent favored Obama's stance, and 49 percent McCain's.

McCain said yesterday: "In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander in chief doesn't get a learning curve."

Obama, who has less national-security experience than McCain, said he had shown judgment superior to his rival by having opposed the war from the start.

"I warned that the invasion of a country posing no imminent threat would fan the flames of extremism," Obama said. ". . . Sen. McCain claimed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that democracy would spread across the Middle East."

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.

In the speech, Obama said he would have five national-security goals as president: Ending the war in Iraq; finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban; making sure nuclear materials don't fall into the hands of terrorist or rogue states; achieving energy security; and rebuilding international alliances.