Kerry: Obama would be "irresponsible" to send more troops to Afghanistan now

Being sensible, as always.

It is refreshing to hear our representatives doing their duty to question the administration. It is a dramatic shift from the lock-step Republicans who rubber stamped us into war and bankruptcy.

I don't mind the Democrats questioning the proposed health care reforms. They are in stark contrast to the Republicans who are united in their obstructionism just as they were in their blind support of Bush and Cheney's nitwit plans of democratization of the Middle East. I believe that President Obama welcomes the dialog. It takes an intelligent person to recognize they don't have all the answers. That was the major fault of the Bush-Cheney administration PNAC neo-cons who thought that they had the master solution for the Middle East. They refused to listen to the historians and the complexity of the religious situation and tribal alliances.

in fact - he should bring um all home right now IMO. good for john kerry.

Until then, he really can't make any calls.

The fact is that he has chaired at least 5 hearings with experts from all sides in the SFRC and he has been to Afghanistan and seen it in greater depth than many people who are in that room. In addition, his views were solicted by the President, so obviously Obama considers them worth something. It is good that someone is coming down on that side.

Are you implying that only people in the situation room have the right to give an opinion? Did you think that in 2002 and 2003?

and Kerry having no final decision in the end because he isn't in the O adminstration like VP Biden, SOS Clinton, etc. and that the media will try to use or spin this against Obama. They could care less about the hearings, the role of the SFRC or it's Chairman.

Obama doesn't have a problem with this, this is what he would want. He said he never wanted to listen to just Yes Men like his smirky predecesor.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sheesh!

Me respects your opinion, but I guess that mine isn't anymore.

It's ok. Since President Obama was inagurated, I am feeling like I no longer have a voice, or welcomed here at DU anymore, so will be in lurk mode. I am out.

Peace.

I'm tired of the people who are calling other people cheerleaders without recognizing where the other person is coming from. It's rude and dismissive...hence unappreciated. You may not have said cheerleader but you implied it in your post.

and am not rude anyone.

And have not used the word "cheerleader." I do not like that or "hero-worshipper". I am neither. There is nothing wrong with praising President Obama when he does right.

And just like you and others, I support President and Senator Kerry, in fact, supportive of anyone that is for progress and putting forth the Obama agenda. I am so sorry that is being called into question today, if not the last few months.

However, it is rude to tell someone to STFU (unless someone deserves it).

So yeah...I was offended, because you're making my post dismissive because of your interpretation of who and what I am in my posting. I don't see why that's hard to see. You find me a rude poster, but I was offended by your post and I still am. I can have that feeling. And on a final note, I don't care about your resume on this board, I found your post rude. But that's whatever.

Apologies. I never said you were rude personally. Saying that you don't care about one's resume is a little rude. Just that telling one STFU was over the top IMO. But, whatever fits your both I guess.

And, you seemed so dismissive of Kerry's comments. He may not be part of the cabinet, but he has the ear of the president and the VP. He also is a power player in Washington who happens to chair one of the committees most involved in assessing,assisting and contributing to the dialog on what is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I clearly stated that I respect Kerry, but I didn't know his role in the scheme of things and considering what goes on behind the doors----I don't know how much he was privy too. Is that a problem statement? What's wrong with making such a statement. I'm far from dismissing Kerry overall.

I for one took it to mean something other than a glowing comment on Kerry being a serious player in all of this.

It was mainly to move past the statement "I love Kerry." <----it reeks of superficiality (even though factual) and doesn't add anything in way of discussion of the article. The "...but seriously" is to bring it to topic, it has nothing to do with what Kerry said.

:)

of us would know what that was like, or what one would be "privy" too if one were in there. I believe the OP said Kerry WAS in Afghanistan ...Yes? If he were, I would imagine he would have some kind of credible read on the situation.

Speaking from Afghanistan, Kerry, who is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. should listen to the advice of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in that country.

"When our own, you know, commanding general tells us that a critical component of achieving our mission here is, in fact, good governance, and we're living with a government that we know has to change and provide it, how could the president responsibly say, oh, they asked for more, sure, here they are?," Kerry said.

Lest we forget that President Obama is still of flesh and bone, listening to advice and counsel from decorated WAR veterans who have actually had experience in combat, and with wars that are un winnable, doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. It was in fact Kerry's most compelling attribute in '04 for me.

It has been widely reported that Obama and Kerry have spoken often and at length. I seriously doubt the conversation is one way or Obama asking terse questions and Kerry answering. It is highly unlikely that Obama would not tell Kerry anything major pushing the decision in the opposite direction. To not do this devalues the advice and opinions he has asked Kerry for.

In addition, Kerry has input that people like Clinton and many other national service people do not have - and he has at least as much knowledge of the history, and counterterrorism efforts fought in support of a corrupt government. He has warned about this quietly since at least January, when HRC was confirmed. The Senate is very aware of McChrystal's request.

There is also the fact that Obama has not ok'd either his administration people or the military to speak to the relevant committees. (This was mentioned by Lugar at one of their Afghanistan hearings.) The fact is that Congress should be informed and allowed to provide advice - which can, of course, be rejected.

The fact is that Kerry has gone out of his way to have Obama's back. The fact is that he took on the role of attack dog in the primary and general election. This is a role an elder statesman almost never takes because there is enormous risk to their own reputation. The only other person I can think of doing this in decades is Bill Clinton - and that was for his wife. Kerry also gave Obama the speech and his early endorsement at a point where had Clinton won, let's just say he wouldn't have been a WH favorite.

If there is any issue where Kerry's experiences, both in Vietnam and on the SFRC, make it less possible for him to remain silent, I don't know what it is. Kerry absolutely does not owe Obama that and he owes his constituents his opinion, not to mention he owes it to the troops.

I totally agree with ath Kerry definitely supports Obama. I even put that in my message to another poster if not your post. I think in many cases next to Rahm and Nancy I think Kerry is Obama's strongest advocate. Don't mistake my statement as though I'm saying Kerry is not supportive of O or that in some way he's bashing O. Far from it...I just questioned how deeply he is connected to the events. However you stated he's on advisory level and I have read some of the articles on this issue so I'm prone to agree with your argument and fully recognize your position. I am not even talking about Kerry's experiences, I know he's very knowledgeable on the military issues and he is fully in his right to express his opinion...that was NEVER the point of my post.

Edited to say Thanks for explaining the situation to me and Kerry's role on the SFRC (I was unaware of this).

What I am saying is that there is information privy to the meeting that is not discussed on the outside, or I would presume as much. This has been detailed before and that is my only position on the topic. It's in no way to discredit Kerry's position or his statement. I'm however saying that Obama might have valid reasons why he needs to go in and this could be due to revelations only discussed in the Situation room.

The fact is that Kerry has clearances and if Obama is asking his advice or opinion, I assume that Obama would want an informed opinion - so he likely has been appraised of any significant reasons. In addition, from the hearings, the real problem is that there really is no single good answer.

The problem I see is that McChrsystal, who is not part of the civilian leadership has spoken very publicly pushing his preferred position. McChrystal is speaking from his area of expertise, military policy. That creates pressure on Obama. All Kerry did was speak from his area of expertise (foreign policy) after spending 2 days speaking with the military and the Afghan government. Kerry may well have more information on this particular situation as well as the history than many people in the room.

If Obama wanted Kerry as a loyal subordinate who would have had to limit his disagreements (and this may not be one) to behind closed doors, he could have asked him to be in his cabinet. It would be fair to ask a cabinet member, who has the privilege of giving his opinion in national security meeting, to not disagree in public. In the position Kerry has his responsibility is to his oath of office, the country and to Massachusetts - not to Obama, to whom he has shown nothing but respect.

Did you admire Senators Hagel and Lugar questioning Bush policies on the wars? Kerry is in precisely Lugar's position. Kerry is right to be Kerry and to say and do what he thinks is right.

Did I mention the guy?! I never said that what Kerry said was wrong. Where in my post did I say that?! I just simply said that I see his position but I did not know he was privy of information in the Situation room. As I don't presume all congressman are. If Kerry does have the clearance then so be it. As for Bush coming into the picture...I see no point since I'm not even wasting my time on that.

The point is that party loyalty or being a friend of the President should not keep him silent

My point, though poorly stated, is better stated here by Senator Kerry;

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSTRE59C69420091013?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11621

Kerry's comment says it all.

Kerry is NOT in the situation room, but by many accounts is one of the people who Obama has opted to bring in. He has the appropriate clearances, so I doubt the President, who is asking his opinion is hiding anything said in the room.

I have to admit I was confused by the Bush statement, because I didn't know where that was going. My only point was that I wasn't aware of how close Kerry was to the issue. And that's on me. That was my only point. I understood his statement clearly and respected it, just wasn't sure where that would go in regards to the big picture, which I wasn't aware he was in the "know."

dysfunction in the government. Even if Obama is the one who must make the latest decision, which, as far as I know, he has not made yet, so you are already assuming what he is thinking,even if he could very well agree with Kerry. Curious.

And I had said thanks.

that is why he wanted Kerry to go to Afghanistan to report back. Biden and Kerry are the two best voices Obama can have right now.

You must have missed the reports about Obama consulting Kerry on this. Plus, Kerry's duty to all of us as head of Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to be HONEST in his assessments of the situation on the ground and not just to take the easy road and go along with the hawks who seem to dominate these debates.

no need to say it. :)

That is something different and I have stated, I'm not aware of that. Again, I'm not bashing Kerry's opinion or thoughts, I'm just saying the stuation is different when you're not in the room getting the same information as the President.

Because, as far as I thought, Obama has started a national conversation on the issue, and Kerry is one of Obama's closest advisers on the topic, if we can believe the media. So, how do you know Kerry is not just defending what Obama and Biden are thinking.

You are puzzling me here. I see that as defending Obama's position not to rush to send troops. You seem to see that as opposing Obama. Why?

I don't get your post. All I stated was that I was not aware that Kerry was privy to information in the situation room and at times that changes perspectives based on who you're talking too. End of it. I'm not making any presumption on Obama's thought process. Further more I was not aware how closely connected Kerry was...in several posts to my post you made yourself very clear---I'm trying to figure out this third one. I thought once would have been enough. I never even stated that Kerry is not defending Biden or Obama...where is this coming from?! I don't even know if Kerry is reiterating Obama's thoughts...as you don't know that he is. I was simply stating that I was not aware Kerry was in the situation room and giving his input that is all.

I think you're reading a lot into my post.

and an active player in foreign policy.

Most people know this on this board, so, from this point of view, your post seems both dismissive of Kerry and defensive of Obama.

And I am quite certain that Kerry is hearing about ALL the information from Obama and Biden. Plus, as head of SFRC, Kerry would be CLEARED to hear all that information.

That's all I needed. Thanks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSTRE59C69420091013?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11621

Kerry's comment says it all.

Which I was not aware of...Thanks for chiming in...I guess.

the video of Kerry about Afghanistan! So GLAD he made his comments, I can only WISH his voice will be heard LOUD & CLEAR! A country that doesn't even have a decisive election result and WE want to MAKE MORE WAR!!!

Good God Almighty! What Are We Fighting For?? HUH?? It just MUST STOP, and as a Boomer LIKE Kerry, well "been there, done that" seems appropriate, but we KEEP doing it!

I'm SICK of it and MORE THAN FED UP!! Go ahead, start the DRAFT AND JUST PERHAPS WAR WILL STOP!! I wonder, I REALLY wonder what this country has become, or stands for anymore!!

Very strong and very clever pointing out that McChrystal said good governance is a critical component. The only way the hawks refute this is to say:

- Good governance is not needed
or
- Afghanistan has good governance

Either one sounds dumb.

It seems clear that Senator Kerry, who was concerned from information given in the SFRC hearings, is more certain now that he has seen and spoken to people in Afghanistan - this will be a great interview to see tomorrow.

This was BRILLIANT.

Obama may feel he has no choice, after all the information is weighed, than to send additional troops. I hope it doesn't happen, but it might. It's a very difficult decision--I don't think Obama needs words like "irresponsible" used as public pressure from his own side before he's made a decision. This is perhaps something Kerry should have said in private and not in an interview.

And I think offering a "good cop, bad cop" perspective to the Afghanis is a positive diplomatic role for Sen. Kerry to take. This can take some pressure OFF of Pres. Obama.

He can say, "I disagree with McChrystal's recommendations" or "I don't think an increased troop presence will produce the results we seek" or any manner of statements on the same idea. But it's unnecessary to make a statement that casts judgment upon Obama personally. Language does matter.

From many accounts, Kerry has been an adviser and an ally, but he has also said that he will give his own assessment. That is his responsibility as a Senator. In 2006, he said in one of his speeches at Faneuil Hall that he could not be a Senator in good standing staying silent when he thinks the policy is wrong. He spoke of this in terms of morality. Just because the President is someone he likes and whom he helped get elected does not change that responsibility. Kerry reports to the people of MA, not the President. In a town hall in early September, he was asked if he would speak out if he disagreed and his answer was that he would.

In addition, Kerry is the Senator, who has held the most hearings this year on Afghanistan and has made several trips there and been in communication with the leaders. There are few people outside the military, which is limited in what they can say, and the administration, which is also limited in what they can say. This is an area where he has oversight.

Kerry has to make his own independent assessment as chairman of the SFRC. Obama will make his decision based on the information gleaned from knowledgeable sources. It's likely that a number of them will make the case publicly for more troops. Why should Kerry make his case in private? The public needs to hear the case against more troops from as many credible voices as possible.

died such a BITTER man!! He ALWAYS said that the Viet Nam War ruined him! Or words to that affect!! Sometimes it's REALLY harder to make the CORRECT decision even IF it seems unpopular at this moment!

Why can't we learn from Iraq, just Iraq alone should be considered BEFORE MORE WAR!! How many of us here screamed about so many of those running for POTUS and their incorrect decision regarding Iraq??

I DON'T want to go there again! But then, I'm just part of "we the people!" You know, the ones who are feeling kind of left out and alone ONCE AGAIN!!!

to the Clinton-Gates-McChrystal-Holbrooke corner over the Biden-Kerry-Reed corner?

I do agree though, irresponsible is a strong word, but Kerry has always said in situations like these, he would always side on what he thought was best for America, he would not play politics with our soldiers or American lives.

I am glad to see opposition growing to a Kinder-Gentler Counterinsurgency.

I have been disturbed to see all the glamorizing of McCrystal and his kinder, gentler counter insurgency plans. Wow, he gets up early to run every day, he only eats one meal a day, he instructs our troops to befriend the people to help them resist the Taliban, etc.

Sure, talking with people instead of shooting them on sight or dropping bombs from drones is an improvement to Bush Gang style, but it just looks like a more palatable way to become further embroiled in "the graveyard of empires."

The Taliban will wait us out. And as Frontline showed, they'll hide out and when they find out who spoke to those friendly American troops, they'll beat them up and/or kill them. For those of us who watched the US war on the Vietnamese, the Frontline show about "Obama's War" was eerily familiar. The Taliban are the guerrilla fighters who know the territory so well they can fight without being seen. And there was lots of talk in various stages of the Vietnam conflict about "training the Vietnamese troops to take over the fight themselves." Then more and more troops were required for the "training" effort.

So alas, the most effective thing would be to withdraw from Afghanistan too. Especially after the compromised elections. I'm glad Kerry zeroed in on that fact to urge more careful debate.

I say "alas" because that is such a tough sell to the entrenched military industrial complex. But the Soviets went in there as "friends" too, and we helped the opposition embroil them in a long war that bankrupted their economy and destroyed their country, as Zbig has bragged. How can we not see that we are following in their footsteps?

Of course there will be the inevitable cadre of those who will complain that we should never disagree with the president. We just had 8 years of that shit.

Kerry. Patriotism; Yur doin it right.

:thumbsup:

hopes that fellow supporters of the president will not see this as Kerry turning on Obama. :hide:

:kick:

who have been dominating the debate on this in the media, so far.

They don't like it when somebody (ally or no ally) says things they think could be used against Obama, or make him look bad, keeping in mind that Kerry doesn't "work" for Obama. And that in the end, it will be Obama's decision to make (there a couple of posts like that in this thread above with no response to the rebuttals).

Me personally has no problem with what Kerry said. He is playing good cop/bad cop and there is nothing wrong with that IMO.

of this as he and Kerry have been in regular consultation over Afghanistan.

Unfortunatly, his best, if not ardent DU supporters see this as Kerry putting Obama on blast, when Kerry has no right to speak out since he isn't in the Obama Adminstration.

:kick:

McChrystal is the commander in Afghanistan. You would think he would want to hear his views.

Where questions can be asked and answered before the public. They had several with Petraeus concerning Iraq. Why none with Afghanistan?

Have you noticed that he hasn't appeared before the Armed Services Committee? There McCain actually demanded he do so.
( link to Lugar quote)

Have you watched even one of the 5 hearings? ( http://foreign.senate.gov/hearing.html - September 17 and 17, Oct 1 and Oct 7 and earlier - February 5) It might be a good idea to do so rather than implying that Kerry has not done a huge amount on this. Lugar made the same point you did - questions should be asked and answered publicly. Kerry said then that he has Clinton's commitment to come to a hearing this month. That is beginning to look questionable as it is not scheduled. It is pretty clear which side is stopping it.

Frankly, President Obama owes it to the country to make the military available to the Armed Services Committee and the State Department people available to SFRC.

In addition, Kerry has spoken to many generals over the last several years and I seriously doubt if this was the first time he did.

Maybe you should ask why not a single Obama administration official was made available for the hearings Kerry had on Afghanistan. A clue is it was not because they weren't asked.

Here is what Senator Lugar said:



http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2009/LugarStatement090917a.pdf

The fact is Kerry has held 5 excellent hearings on Afghanistan.

I am not talking about closed door meetings in Afghanistan. There should be open public hearings on the war. There were with Petraeus and Iraq.

As Senator Lugar said - invitations were rejected by the Obama administration. They also refused to let the generals testify before the Armed Services Committee.

Have you bothered to watch even one of the hearings he had - they were very good, focused and designed to test underlying assumptions. The fact is the main things that need to be defined are the goals and the strategy.

and I'm not jumping on Kerry. But I do think we need public hearings no matter who is holding things up.

was avoiding having the general on.

I think there should be a discussion before 68,000 are augmented by another 40,000. Remember 21,000 was just added. This would mean that we went from 47,000 (68 - 21) to 108,000 (68 + 40) if this is approved. (Not to mention, 40,000 was not his original number.) I think Kerry's public statements could at least move the discussion off committee hearings, foreign policy forums, and some good articles to something actually discussed. I would bet the average person is completely unaware of the corruption and lack of good governance in Afghanistan - especially as Kharzi was built up in the US press years ago and for many that was the last they heard.

Know the Jack & Jill Politics gang and Obama's best supporters don't either. Go figure.

I don't see complaining about Kerry there. Maybe I am not looking carefully enough.

forget I ever said anything in this thread. Really.

It was just a guess. There isn't/wasn't complaing. And there isn't a link needed. They just have some hardcore Obama supporters over there.

Will just leave it at that. Have already been semi-chewed out above so guess me should have thought before jumping in this thread. :shrug:

Next time, I will just STFU and steer clear of informative threads like this one in the future.

:hi:

And that these roles will, ultimately, compliment each other.

This is no disadvantage to having dissent publicly spoken. This is no disadvantage to Pres. Obama and certainly no bad reflection on Sen. Kerry. Each man has a role to play in leveraging the American position. The idea that this is a zero sum game with absolute winners on one side or the other is simplistic and kind of silly.

These are both smart people who understand how diplomacy works. Each side is nicely playing their role. We need to kick up the dirt pile in order to see what was under it. That is what is happening.

Better to have smart people than Yes Men/Women speaking out on diplomacy on Afghanistan. It sounds like a good cop/bad cop strategy though. Maybe the senator is trying to slowly move Obama to his and Biden's position. Just an educated guess.

They will be disappointed in Obama if that doesn't happen. Sure, they love him, but heck, so do I. And I can imagine some folks over there being very concerned about Obama.

Don't worry about it, though.

Some of the hardcore Pro-Obama supporters are taking a break right now. And yes, they and we love him (and are protective when posters disagree with his decisions), but they are civil.

I do agree about public option. JJP and its bloggers are in strong support of it. And hopefully Obama (he has said it all along) will refuse to sign a bill without it, though there may be some compromises though.

Thanks. Nothing to worry about. It's all good.

Kerry on Afghanistan and Iran

sending another 45,000 to that motherfucker post haste.

Sources also say:

Who knows?

I may have missed something these last two days, because I was busy with the healthcare debate and a few personal issues, but when did Obama decide what he wanted to do?

to hear what Kerry learned and saw in Afghanistan. It said the decision would be in the next few weeks.

...the loop. HIGHLY doubtful.

then Kerry is aware and making it known that his opinion is that it is a mistake right now to just deploy more troops.

I would like to see MORE VietNam Veterans giving Obama advice about the dangers of escalating a useless war.

Hopefully he stands by this position.

:popcorn:

Hi, PBS!!!

:hi:

This is your opinion of what Senator Kerry said? Strange reaction there.

:)

and information was given. There have been threads that really could be called "food fights" this isn't one of them.

As for Kerry's comments, I have no problem with them whatsoever. Even though I think that Obama will take the middle of the road option and send some more troops, but not as many as McChrystal wanted.

;-)

I hope that Obama rejects the idea of counterinsurgency for the reason Kerry gave. We did that in Vietnam. Neither Diem or Thieu had popular support and they were corrupt. Senator Kerry knows this as well as anyone as he saw it first hand.

It's larger than Iraq and the rugged terrain make it ideal for ambushes and guerrilla warfare.

Basically establish strongholds scattered around the country manned by
special forces types and subject Al Qaeda & Taliban leadership to surprise
attacks using drones and air-drop heavily armed special op's soldiers.

Result: Minimum loss of our soldiers, and create disarray amongst the bad guys
so they can't organize another 911.

Others, on the other hand have no real foreign policy experience and just like playing hawks.

There is no case being made that even under the most sunny of outcomes will we have a result commiserate with the investment made in blood and capital, even above doing absoutely nothing. It is also clear that the half trillion dollar minimum ante will absolutely come at the expense of investing these resources in our own country.

Even the most dogged hawks fail to spin any direct national interest in this misadventure and generally stick to such glowing terms as "not impossible" to describe the chances of succeeding in a counter insurgency plan.

McChrystal's plan calls for at best a negligible effect on national security that will bought at an extraordinary expense over a long period of time. No one is willing to even speculate on the results of going to through this massive effort and it fails to work despite admitting the odds are less than average.

You simply don't bet this large with so little to gain with such long odds. Anyone who is enthusiastic about this deal is either uninformed at even the most basic level, stupid as hell, or has something to gain personally or professionally. Even the "cheerleaders" in the congressional hearings have had little to sell and almost nothing that anyone who isn't itching for war could possibly buy in any honest cost to benefit ratio analysis.

This is folly. Counter insurgency has very negligible chances of success here and I think honest observers would have to agree.

I obviously have no idea what happens behind closed doors and whether the recent rumor that Obama has decided to send a large number of troops has any base in reality or not. I also hope to have he chance the hear Kerry's comments in a larger context than the video clip currently on CNN's site. But at least on the surface Kerry is NOT criticizing any Obama statement or decision. He is simply answering and giving his view point to comment quoted to him by John King. In this limited context at least, Kerry IS having Obama's back because the quote was very clearly crtical of Obama.

side. Hopefully he will go with their advice when it comes to Afghanistan. Kerry must speak out loudly both in private and in public.

"It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop level if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing the Afghan country," Emanuel said in an interview with CNN's "State of the Union."

Gee, you think maybe Senator Kerry and Rahm (on behalf of the President) are saying the same thing for a reason? I think Obama talks to the head of the SFRC on a pretty regular basis...

McChrystal's public extortion attempt has failed.

I think the way both have turned it into a time to seriously examine the options and test the assumptions was the only way to do this. You are right in calling it a public extortion - likely counting on Obama being insecure enough to fear being called everything from weak to a traitor (for exercising his right as President). Kerry's hearings have provided a public examination of the pros and cons of the options. I wish the media would have covered them better, but many of the comments there have appeared in articles on the choices. I assume that if Obama chooses a path different than McChrystal's, he will likely make the case for his decision and it is likely that no matter what the decision is - some of the defense given by some of the witnesses at those hearings will be useful.

The Administration appears to be choosing the worse of several bad options, now that the peace option is effectively off the table.

The Karzai regime is corrupt, is involved in narco-trafficking, and it stole the last election with the help of several warlords (including Rashid Dostum).

To keep our hard pressed troops in the field without relief or any sort of reinforcements until a run off election is held in the spring is irresponsible and criminal.

Bring the troops home now, and stop creating more grave sites at our national cemeteries.

Kerry’s Word: Senator John Kerry, one of the Western officials working damage control in Kabul, said it would be irresponsible for the United States to consider sending additional troops Afghanistan. With the election results still pending amid allegations of fraud and President Obama facing contradictory recommendations from his cabinet on how to proceed in the region, Mr. Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said a decision must wait in taped remarks to be broadcast on CNN’s “State of the Union” this morning.

In a separate interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” today, Mr. Kerry directly addressed the conundrum facing President Obama, lending his voice to the Democratic discord.

“I don’t see how President Obama can make a decision about the committing of our additional forces or even the further fulfillment of our mission that’s here today without an adequate government in place or knowledge about what that government’s going to be,” he said.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/the-sunday-word-afghanistan/?scp=5&sq=john%20kerry&st=cse

To my knowledge this is as close as anyone near Obama (other than maybe Biden) has come to saying this. But, both Biden and Kerry agree that leaving completely would be a disaster.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/us/politics/19talkshows.html?_r=1

I have seen none of the two interviews, but how can two reportings on the same basic event have two views that are so different.

those interviews.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/the-sunday-word-afghanistan/?scp=5&sq=john%20kerry&st=cse

They also had an article on Biden's position, where Kerry strongly defended him and his judgment on this.

Even in this article, nothing in the article backs the headline. Just because he said that the surge is irresponsible with the current government, does not necessarily mean that you can turn this around - assume that was his only reservation and say - that he backs it "with strategy". (Not to mention, he said nothing about "strategy", he spoke of "governance or actually the lack of it". )

We apparently will just have to wait and see what transpires in Afghanistan.
I come to this conclusion based on the following comments from Senator Kerry,


These comments were taken from the "State of the Union" transcript from this morning.

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-sen-kerry-on-state-of-the-union/

"This struggle here in Afghanistan, and the goals of the president that he has defined with respect to al Qaeda and the stability of the region, those goals will not be achieved by just the United States military or the numbers of troops here."

"And so this mission is not defined exclusively by its military component. And we've got to make certain that the other pieces, again, I say, are achievable. And I'm not yet convinced that we're there."

"We are here in Afghanistan because people attacked us here in the most significant attack against the United States since Pearl Harbor."

"We are here because there are still people at large who are plotting against the United States of America. And we are here because the stability of this region is of critical strategic interest to the United States."

"Look, obviously if you exhibit weakness or indecision, or if the United States were to suddenly pull out of here, it would be disastrous in terms of the message that it sends. Nobody is talking about that. That's not what is on the table here.

What we're trying to figure out so that we don't repeat mistakes of the past, is not just committing people in -- putting them in harm's way and endlessly asking our military to deploy and go out and fight if we aren't certain that we're giving them the mission that, in fact, is achievable and that the American people will in fact stay committed to it."

and until the government in Afghanistan is known, that can't be determined. If that can't be determined, then how do you define the troops needed.

It does sound that he wants something more than the way Biden's plain vanilla counter terrorism. This seemed true in his hearings as well as he was concerned that just killing terrorists wouldn't work because it wouldn't make others not become terrorists.

Here is a thoughtful Pakistani article which deals both with Pakistan and Afghanistan. http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=88036&Itemid=1

It will be interesting to hear Kerry speak of this more fully in either an op-ed or a speech. What is clear is that he really is investigating all of the pieces.