Wonderful piece by Chairman Kerry in WSJ OpEd today (9/29/09)

A very well-timed, informed and thoughtful piece by Senator Kerry in the http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438660617984826.html">Wall Street Journal today.



This is clearly someone with a life time of experience asking the right questions before the US makes a commitment it might either regret or not be able to fulfill. This is the former warrior who knows that the time to ask life or death questions is before the troops are sent, not after.

I am so glad to see Sen. Kerry as Chair of SFRC. Right man, right time and the right circumstances. The whole opinion piece is up online at WSJ. Very worth a read.

If anyone knows their stuff on this subject, it's Sen. Kerry (both as a foreign policy expert and as a decorated veteran).

"I am so glad to see Sen. Kerry as Chair of SFRC. Right man, right time and the right circumstances"

100% agree. :D

Do you think Lt. Kerry would be impressed simply if a Senator asked questions? What year are we in metaphorically? 1965 or 1968?

I liked the essay but it is merely a beginning point. I want to see the moment where Sen. Kerry comes to a decision (or is it when Pres. Obama comes to a decision, and Kerry gives him his support whether he agrees or disagrees?). I still feel muddled by what is happening. I DO like that the President has put the brakes on more troops. But I also think Gen. McChrystal is right that time is running out.

I assume Obama wakes up every day and thinks: do NOT be like LBJ!!

He chose to testify before the Committee, whose job it is, surely, to find out via investigation and questioning what their position should be on an issue and what advice they should offer the President.

I don't think JK's questions and investigations as Chairman of the SFRC are "simple" in any way -- I think he takes them with deadly seriousness and has the power to dig very deeply into a matter as vital the committing of troops in time of war. I believe Lt. Kerry would be relieved to know that someone with power and influence was trying to find out the truth.

I'm relieved, too, as it is very muddling and Obama has a very thankless decision to make. I'll definitely be watching the SFRC hearing on Afghanistan and Pakistan on Thursday.

The trick, the balance to be maintained, is to not be intimidated by history nor try to be ruled by it. I think that the good Chairman is doing that. No one event is ever exactly replicated by history. Afghanistan is not Vietnam, but it carries echoes of policy mistakes and challenges the other war had. Can the participants who are still around from Vietnam bring some wisdom from that experience to the situation in Afghanistan now, before we harden the strategy for the next few years? That is the challenge.

Sen. Kerry's role as a US Senator and Chair of the SFRC is to listen to a vast array of voices and then make a decision. He is being and should be attentive to what the military commanders on the ground are saying. These are not stupid people or people who wish the country ill. (As we all know. No one would make that argument.) Then the Rep or Sen. makes an informed decision and pursues it and can council the President.

I think that is happening now.

it seems that Kerry is attempting to do the testing every underlying assumption. I am not sure there is an exact equivalent Vietnam year, but 1965 may be closer. Someone on one of the talk shows yesterday (Will?) used 1965 when troops increased to 184,300 from 23,300. In 1965, there was not a huge amount of antiwar sentiment. What may be an equivalent to then was that Fullbright held his first round of hearings. One hopeful difference may be that Obama is not LBJ and Obama has in recent weeks used language that shows some impact from Kerry, either 1971 or recent years - saying he will not make decisions to save face.

1968 was from a MUCH higher point than we are now and there was already substantial agreement that we needed to find an exit. Doing so was in both parties 1968 platforms. It was also the point where troops levels started to decrease. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/U.S._Troop_levels_in_Vietnam_War

I think Kerry is trying very hard to have hearings with good people representing each point of view ably and with knowledge and he is asking tough questions of all of them. To me, he is creating a public record that will provide support for taking a position. In this piece, there are echoes of things said in the hearings. For instance, several people latched onto the phrase "good enough governance once it was used - to his credit Kerry assigns authorship of the phrase to the expert who used it. In the second hearing, that idea became the basis of much discussion.

This week there will be a hearing on the impact on Pakistan. From last week's hearings, that was one of two things that Obama's original policy considered most important - the other being keeping AQ from using Afghanistan as a safe base. To me, this hearing represents a first step in building a solid case for whatever decision is to be made. I think the oped is an attempt to bring people into seeing the complexities of the decision process and to show the questions that need to be (and will be) addressed. It seems like the first steps in creating a proof (mathematics/science) or a case (law) for a recommendation. As Kerry is known to be an Obama confidant, there is some possibility that this emerging "case" could be useful as backup for Obama in defending the choice he makes.

I think Kerry will have a public position, that will be based on his own knowledge and all the input that he can get analyzed to the best of his ability. At this point, Kerry's hearings are public - as is this op-ed - and they are asking questions. In addition, the NYT says Kerry is one of the three people (outside the administration I think is implied) that Obama is influenced by.) I assume that Kerry is likely more decisive in what he says privately to the President. It may well be that Kerry speaking privately has more impact than Kerry taking a strong policy contrary to Obama's - as he did with Bush on "the path forward" or Kerry/Feingold. It might be that while he has great potential to influence behind the scenes, achieving real change even if he is not seen as the source, he will keep disagreements low key.

But, given the intensity of Kerry's comments on Iraq - such as - that he could not as a senator in good standing stay quiet when the policy is wrong, I think that if Kerry comes to find that he disagrees with Obama's plan, he will publicly disagree. Since March he has pointedly spoken of his concerns, especially the last time HRC testified.

It would be wise to actually assess the entire situation and not just jump at the time worn strategy of just sending in more troops. We should not just react to this situation in Afghanistan. Reacting instead of clearly thinking out or rationalizing the situation, usually ends badly.
Republican's are all up in arms about not just listening to McChrystal and sending in more troops. This new urgency from them is laughable when they said very little about Afghanistan when Pres. Bush was in office. Now they act as if we have a fire to put out. I just got an earful from Kit Bond on CNN, who thinks we should just listen to General McChrystal and send the troops in. Nothing is sacred to them-even our soldier's lives-everything is politics. All the more reason to just ignore them on this.

Personally, I would like to see Kerry's strategy attempted- counter terrorism. His book, "The New War" comes to mind.

He is certainly a great chairman, but I still believe he would have been just as impressive- if not more so-as SOS. (You know I will never give up on this, LOL)

perspective here.

A very thoughtful analysis, with both depth and breadth, that has Obama's back, in the sense that it shows the complexity of the situation and implicitly of the decision that Obama has to make. It helps giving him some breathing space, not much, but some.