Kerry is wary about sending more troops

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSTRE59C69420091013?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11621

Posted in DU http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8700808

It will be interesting to hear what he has to say when he returns.

Funny way of putting it. I am looking forward to his download as well (and wish he were already back).

By the way guys, I am leaving in a few hours, going for a month or so to Romania to see my very old mother with a stop over of a few days in France on my way back to see an old friend. I hope I will be able to watch CSPAN on my mother's computer!

and Senator Kerry's brain seems to have the ability to process and store an incredible amount of information. I really think Kerry's insight will impact the decision. Like you I wish he were already back. Pakistan and Afghanistan are both scary at this point. (OT CNN was reporting this morning that McChrystal has told Obama that ANY number of troops can not guarantee avoiding failure (note: not "victory", "avoiding failure") - though I can't find a link)

I hope you have a fantastic visit with your mother. It likely has to have hard being so far away from her. (Good luck on getting CSPAN.)

I don't know. A download usually means an audio or video file.

to refer to getting all that someone knew on something - not a huge hexadecimal file. I jumped to thinking this was a similar use of language.

Maybe because we are older computer types :-).

On edit: and I am a computer type that manages to make 2 typos in a half line message!

.

...your time with your mother. It is important time to spend. ;) And I join in the hope that you will get C-Span... :7

Finished packing and killing some time until it's time to go to the airport. And wondering what's that most essential and irreplaceable item I forgot to take :-).

out of Afghanistan. Kind of interesting since his big talking point against the Iraq war (through 2008) was that we were taking our eye off the Afghanistan War (sorry, Russ, but you said that over and over again!!). Now that our eye is on that ball, well, um, forget it, let's get the hell out! Okay, pointing out Feingold's inconsistencies aside, I wonder how far behind Kerry is from him. The truth is we will never be able to nation build Afghanistan. So I think we should not commit any more blood or treasury to that. Maybe we should do a "surge" minus the extra troops in Afghanistan just like Iraq? After all, the main part of the surge was bribing everyone. That would be cheaper than nation building.

I hope if Obama doubles down, Kerry says with candor he disagrees. In fact, him threatening to break with the President amounts to pressure, no? If the neocons and Diane Feinstein are going to exert pressure, then liberals like Kerry need to, too.

which was the reason Kerry backed it in Iraq. It was designed to push them to make the hard political decisions. In Afghanistan, it is not clear that a deadline would accomplish this.

I definitely think that Kerry's repeated comments that he would publicly disagree if he disagrees are pressure. That pressure is amplified by the excellent set of hearings. If he disagrees, it will be by arguing forcefully with logic and facts for a different course. As, this is clearly what he will first have done privately upon his return, Obama will be aware of the strengthen of the case. The good news here is that if Kerry can make a solid case, Obama could well be influenced. If Obama rejects Kerry's case, I hope (for Obama's sake) it is because he genuinely found the other side more persuasive. But, the fact that Kerry has said he will not be silent, is political pressure that could keep Obama from choosing the other side for political reasons - as it will equalize them.

Bad is it was/is, the Maliki government could be pressured and supported. With the mess Kaezai has created, I don't see what lever short of fear of being assasinated (not by us) would work on him, not to mention that his control over the country is mostly an illusion.

I read part of the Newsweek cover article on Biden online the other day, hope to get my hands on the the whole think in one of the several planes I will be on shortly (thanks for the good wishes, by the way!). Quite interesting (and very positive on Biden, at least the part I read, which I very much appreciated, the continous snark about his gaffes gets on my nerves and is very unfair). My gues is that Kerry and Biden are very close on this, which definitely helps.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113783298

If accurate, the country lost when JK did not get Secretary of State - even though JK himself may do just as well as Senator. Imagine the dynamics if instead of HRC, who really was more hawkish, you had Kerry in that room. The entire equation would change with him aligned with Biden. (Not to mention, JK is very persuasive.)

my gut feeling is that a "middle of the road" approach is not right. I do not have enough information to better argue why I feel this way.

By the way, how do people here feel about Gates in general and do you think he is here to stay or will be replaced fairly soon as the early speculations suggested?

If that is an accurate characterization, that approach has been called many things - none positive. The problem is that in reality there may be something else between the two which is a coherent policy, with a strategy consistent with some set of goals and where all the implicit assumptions are thoroughly checked and seem plausible.

I think what might be happening is that it is tough for American leaders (or British) to not think they can "fix" other societies. Going to the counter terrorism approach alone maybe with aid used to help improve the infrastructure will not meet pie in the sky goals - such as equality for women or our idea of democracy, but it is not clear that a counterinsurgency in support of a corrupt government does that either. The difference is the former has no pretense to forcing change, the latter does. There were ideas from the SFRC witnesses that could be put with the counterterrorism approach (even one idea of pushing the allies to work on the infrastructure and institution building, while we do counterterrorism.

Kerry going to Afghanistan suggests that he is still gathering information. Judging from teh way he took the first two SFRC and put them into an op-ed, he really is doing just what he said - examining each piece.

On Gates, I have no clue, but he has done a pretty good job on the talk shows. He has made Obama more hawkish than I would have expected.

If not, why do we think we can fix Afghanistan's? You could argue that Mexico's problems spill into our country moreso than Afghanistan's. No, it hasn't involved the sudden horrific death of thousands of Americans, but I wonder how much Mexico's problems have hurt us, and significantly. Yet we are realistic enough to understand we cannot fix Mexico's entrenched problems. And they are a far more advanced country than Afghanistan.

(heard that idea via Sully's blog. It's a good analogy)

and no one is even suggesting we change Mexico. that does sharply put in focus how completely difficult changing Afghanistan will be.

(nursing my jet lag :-))

Well, unless it means those troops are pulled back on bases and only doing surgical attacks. We can't keep doing what we're doing with not enough troops. I think Gen. McChrystal is being honest on this point. With the strategy he has been given he needs more troops. So if you aren't going to send those troops, that mission MUST be abandoned. I think it was actually Hillary who said it would be immoral to continue the same mission with less troops than the General needed. On that score, I agree with her.

Middle of the Road was what Rumsfeld did for FOUR YEARS in Iraq. Don't let Bush's rhetoric at the time confuse. Rumsfeld had no patience for Iraq and was bored with it. They wanted to be "tough" without really changing things up. It was the WORST and thousands of our troops died. The surge was basically the last bet, and it only sort of worked due to the bribing, and some Iraqis being fed up with the prospect of endless brutal civil war.

I don't see a surge working in Afghanistan, or a timetable. I don't think Karzai has much control over the corruption.

I mean, this is all just a stream of consciousness. Not only is the shadow of Vietnam on Afghanistan, but Iraq, too. I think perhaps we need to take a look at what happened with the Soviets in Afghanistan, and use that as our lesson.

I think this entire article and the discussions demonstrate very little about Clinton's real abilities to be SOS and to form her own opinions, it says more about her sticking to what appears to be the safe route based on what other real so called experts think. My opinion means very little, but I think we need an entirely different strategy in Afghanistan,however,most likely, 10 to 20 thousand more troops will be sent and a watered down counter insurgency strategy will be deployed, because it will be thought this will appease many people, but will it be the right strategy? I don't think so. I am really hoping Obama will make a bold move here, but I doubt it. And, if he takes into account the Clinton's in the mix, playing politics, then you can be sure the strategy will be designed to hold things at bay long enough for others to pick up the pieces.
I really wish Kerry had more influence as a member of the cabinet. It seems Biden is the lone cabinet member trying to bring about a new approach.

(Note he lists JK as one of the people pushing a plan - though in reality he has not publicly articulated a plan.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101503293.html?hpid=topnews

I think he and others in the media forget the amount of time that is usually quietly spent looking at alternatives without the media looking on with baited breath.

I may be in the minority in the conclusions I draw here, but as I see it - barring some really creative thinking and implementation of the new creative ideas from someone who is smarter than anyone who's dealt with it before - here's the choices:

* pull out completely over the requisite timeframe to do so without endangering our forces any more than necessary. Give up on supporting the Afghan government (i.e. Karzai and his cronies for the foreseeable future), and let them win or capitulate to the Taliban whichever way it happens. i.e. turn tail and run, as it will be characterized by 1) the right wing in this country and 2) whoever in the rest of the world can gain by characterizing it as such (and there will be many). This approach sucks because the Taliban will become a haven for terrorist training camps as they did in the past. Not to mention that it would really, really SUCK to be a woman living under Taliban rule. (I saw recently that realization has even dawned on the members of Code Pink.)

* increase our military forces enough to do the job everyone seems to think we signed up for - keep all of Afghanistan "safe" from the Taliban and regain control of any areas currently not under control of the official Afghan government. This will require at least the 40,000 troops asked for - but I heard the real number was 80,000 (on NPR one day - sorry I don't have a better reference). This option assumes that "doing the job" successfully is even possible. Not sure that's a good assumption. If it's a bad assumption, result probably will look very much like Vietnam with more facial hair.

* continue with the same mission without increasing troops by at least 40,000. Expect continued casualties because our troops are spread too thin. Expect more failed missions and deteriorating image of American power by Afghanis and the world, due to inability to meet commitments because we haven't provided the resources to meet those commitments.

* change the mission in a way that requires fewer troops. Assuming no significant improvement in the non-military approach, this means covering less territory. Which territories should we cede to Taliban control?

okay that's not really finished but I gotta go back to the salt mine of my job ... might add to this later if I can. This is a conundrum that is really bugging me.

And I think this is most likely:



Most of Afghanistan is very rural and remote. I think the US will concentrate on the areas around Kabul and focus Special Forces on the border area with Pakistan. The rest of the country will be ceded to Taliban control.

All options suck. Just like Iraq. Doesn't mean we getting out of picking one. Sucks to be us, sucks to be Afghanistan and it really, really, really sucks to be female under the control of an extremist right-wing religious movement. But we can't fix all of this. It is not within our power.

What an awful choice to have to make.

question our assertions though.

With option #1, is it really true that al Qaeda would reconstitute in Afghanistan? I am not so sure. As to women in Afghanistan, well how about women in Yemen or many countries in Africa? I feel bad, but is that really our job to protect all women everywhere? I think the problem anti-war people have is they think that occupied countries want our forces to leave. Actually, a lot of people don't want them to leave. I have met immigrants from Vietnam, and they sure were on the losing end of the North Vietnamese taking over the whole country. Thing is, it needs to come down to what is in America's interests. We don't want al Qaeda strengthening. We don't want Pakistan destabilizing. Those are our objectives.

Tay -- you have a point on narrowing it to a few big population centers. Kind of like the focus on Baghdad during the surge (other areas did suffer, but were not reported on).

I wish it didn't. I wish we could proceed on purely humanitarian grounds. However, the truth is that the money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is money we are borrowing from foreign nations. This money is no longer a sure thing. Other countries have already hinted that they are no longer so willing to continue to finance our debt.

We crossed the $1 trillion dollar mark on monies spent in Iraq and Afghanistan last week. $1 trillion dollars for both wars. The Republicans in Congress who scream about the cost of health care don't want to discuss the cost of the wars or the mistakes we made in fighting those wars, but it is a part of what happened and a part of our consideration of what to do going forward. The USA cannot afford to fund another huge expenditure in Afghanistan and Iraq. The money is not there.
Robert Gates knows this. This is why he is trying to refocus the Pentagon budget on items we need and can use. That also means a big fight because a lot of the big ticket defense items guarantee jobs for people and this is a bad time to cancel a project and all those jobs. (See fight over the F22 or the fight over building more huge aircraft carriers.) The US budget has over reached it's limits.

There is also a bet being placed here. The bet is that the rest of the world has a vested interest in not having Afghanistan and the Middle East deteriorate and India is sure as hell not going to let Pakistan devolve. The US is making all the noises that indicate a serious desire to decouple from some involvement. The rest of the world, particularly neighbors of these "hot spots" are going to have to pay some money here to keep things from exploding. We cannot afford it all. That is not realistic.

Barack Obama is doing a good job considering how badly the situation sucks. (And it does.) Sen. Kerry has little choice, at this piont in time, but to defend Obama. It's not a matter of pure liberal ideology, much as some on the left would like to be. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. And right now, our options are limited and deeply affected by our financial crisis.