Posted By Josh Rogin Share

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry kicked up a firestorm inside the GOP when he seemed to endorse Jon Huntsman's call for a speedy withdrawal from Afghanistan during this week's debate, but his real views on Afghanistan don't match those of Huntsman, the GOP hawks, or President Barack Obama, a senior Perry foreign policy advisor told The Cable.

"In the dynamic of a debate when you follow someone, you kind of play off of them, and what Gov. Perry wanted to do was to express a similar sentiment to Gov. Huntsman that he very much wants to bring the troops home, we all do, but he wasn't saying ‘I want to bring the troops home now,'" the advisor said.

Perry's stance on Afghanistan seems to be searching for a middle ground. Like the Obama administration, he wants to shift emphasis to handing over responsibility to the Afghan security forces as a means of bringing U.S. troops home. But also thinks Obama's announcement of a timetable for withdrawal was unwise -- and he's unsure whether the United States really needs 100,000 troops fighting there still.

"If increasingly the Afghans can do this kind of work, then of course we want to bring our people home. It's good for us, it's good for them. But Gov. Perry is not confident in the Obama policy, which seems to be driven largely by politics, and he's not confident in the 100,000 troops number. He'd like to know if it's possible at 40,000," the advisor said, explaining that the rationale for the specific number of U.S. troops on the ground has never been clearly explained by the administration.

"He would lean toward wanting to bring our troops home, but he understands that we have vital strategic interests in Afghanistan and that a precipitous withdrawal is not what he's recommending."

Perry's stance on Afghanistan isn't likely to fully satisfy those calling for a more rapid withdrawal, or those calling for the 30,000 U.S. "surge" troops to remain in the country past summer 2012, when Obama has said he plans to remove them.

"What [Perry] doesn't have is confidence that [the Afghan  campaign] is being done in a way that's focused on achieving the mission, which would be keeping Afghanistan free of terrorists and not destabilizing the region," the advisor said.

So how many troops does Perry believe should be withdrawn and at what pace?

"We're not in a position to answer that question, we're not in those briefings," the senior advisor said.

Perry also believes the United States should focus greater attention on how it uses foreign aid. He wants to "shine a really bright light on that whole culture of foreign aid and revisit how it is deployed as part of our larger foreign policy," the advisor said.

The advisor touted the fact that Perry is a former member of the military, and signaled that the presidential candidate is prepared to stick to his middle-of-the-road stance in Afghanistan.

"He has a clear sense of the mission and wanting to win it, but not just by throwing the kitchen sink at it," the advisor said.

Update: The Romney and Hunstman campaigns respond, accusing Perry of "flip-flop."

Getty Images

 

SNOWDENISCOLD

9:28 PM ET

September 15, 2011

Deeply grounded foreign policies

So, Obama's Afghan policy is driven by politics but Perry's Afghan policy is so deep and well formulated that he was swayed in the "heat" of a debate by the moderate Huntsman? Please...

"In the dynamic of a debate when you follow someone, you kind of play off of them, and what Gov. Perry wanted to do was to express a similar sentiment to Gov. Huntsman that he very much wants to bring the troops home, we all do, but he wasn't saying ‘I want to bring the troops home now,'"

 

JEFFB2066

9:44 PM ET

September 15, 2011

Withdrawing should be done carefully, thoughtfully

Any withdrawl from Afghanistan and/or Iraq needs to be done carefully, and with serious thought to the consequences both pro and con. Yes, it will save us money and save American lives. Or will it? Will the radicals who still run around saying they just want to kill Americans really be deterred? Will they again have safe-havens to train and organize? Are we going to see more corrupt and incompetent governments take over, then get ousted by better organized anti-American groups like Al-Quieda? I want us to be able to leave these nations as much as anyone, I just don't want them to collapse when we go.

 

JEFFB2066

2:12 AM ET

September 16, 2011

Yes, Don, it is called prejudice and/or bigotry

Yes many of these people do attack us because we have people in those countries. Many of the attacks over the past 30+ years have been against embassies, business facilities and such. Attacking an embassy is just crazy, because embassies exist to allow countries to communicate safely and peacefully. Do we close all our embassies in the middle east, Africa, south Asia, etc. because some nutjobs don't like us? Do you remember the kidnappings in the 1980's and early '90s? Almost all of those were of journalists, aid workers, etc. with a few business people here and there. We've had problems in the middle east long before we ever had troops there. Some of these problems our government created, such as supporting the Shah of Iran, or Mubbarak in Egypt. Many of these incidents have been from way-out-past-foul-ball territory. 'This cameraman works for a news agency owned by the cousin of one of the US President's advisor's ex-wife, so lets kidnap him and use him for leverage to get 793 of our comrades released from prison, so we can all watch the World Cup together.' There are some people from the middle east who have been on ABC and other news stations, saying things like 'I want the flag of Islam to fly over the White House, and won't rest until it does.' Of course, the guy I'm thinking of was in the London studio, wouldn't come over here to say that sort of thing.

 

John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.

Enter your email address to get The Cable delivered to your inbox each night:

Delivered by FeedBurner