Palin just repeated John McCain's claim that the surge strategy from Iraq could be successfully implemented in Afghanistan.  Yet in the past two days alone, the two members of the military working more closely on Afghanistan than anyone fundamentally disagreed with the McCain-Palin plan:

U.S. Commanders rebuff McCain’s vision for the war in Afghanistan. Speaking in Washington yesterday General David McKiernan, head of the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan and former head of ground forces in Iraq, rejected McCain’s plan for Afghanistan.  McKiernan argued that more troops “are urgently required to combat a worsening insurgency, but he stated emphatically that no Iraq-style ‘surge’ of forces will end the conflict there.† While McCain has often said that he wants to apply the same surge strategy in Afghanistan as in Iraq, the commanding general clearly stated “Afghanistan is not Iraq.†General David Petraeus, now the head of CENTCOM and former commander in Iraq said, “People often ask, ‘What did you learn from Iraq that might be transferable to Afghanistan?’... The first lesson, the first caution really, is that every situation like this is truly and absolutely unique, and has its own context and specifics and its own texture.†[Washington Post, 10/2/08. New York Times, 10/1/08]

Afghanistan’s strategic puzzle will not be solved by a surge in troops alone. NATO-ISAF commander General David McKiernan outlined Afghanistan’s many challenges that cannot be addressed purely by an influx of troops: “A country that has very harsh geography. It’s very difficult to move around, getting back to our reliance on helicopters. It’s a country with very few natural resources, as opposed to the oil revenues that [Iraq] has. There’s very little money to be generated in terms of generated in Afghanistan. The literacy rate — you have a literate society in Iraq, you have a society that has a history of producing civil administrators, technocrats, middle class that are able to run the country in Iraq. You do not have that in Afghanistan…So there are a lot of challenges. What I don’t think is needed — the word that I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word ‘surge’…There needs to be a sustained commitment of a variety of military and non-military resources, I believe.† Today’s piece in the New York Times, covering Afghanistan’s debilitating opium trade, which funds insurgents and produces instability, further demonstrates why a military solution alone will not be sufficient in Afghanistan.  [General David McKiernan, Washington Independent, 10/1/08.  NY Times, 10/02/08]