New AP article from LBN...

...about Karzai:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h3mpSI8fPqHjCQ2uJQchn_R1BUoQD9BEIG280

What do you make of Gates' comments?

If he disagrees with what may being considered then he needs to talk to the President directly. This seems like another stunt just like Mc Chrystal's.

...in military terms. And that is his job. Gates:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, meanwhile, said the Obama administration needs to decide on a war strategy and not "sit on our hands" waiting for election results and a government to emerge in Kabul. In remarks to reporters traveling with him to Asia, the Pentagon chief said President Barack Obama will have to make his decisions in the context of "evolving" issues.

But remember JK sees solutions more comprehensively...and diplomacy is one of the tools (as are sanctions,etc.) Under GWB, solutions were military only, and they failed. So I am glad to see a more comprehensive 'All Hands on Deck' strategy.

SecDef Gates' job is to concentrate on the military aspect of this. Sen. Kerry is Chair of a diplomatic committee. Both are doing their jobs and their intra-governmental conflicts will show up from time to time.

...functioning government! YAaaaY! I couldn't be happier. :party:

is to assess things only in military terms. His is oneof the top strategy position on nationla security issues. He shold consider the whole picture, and then whther/how the military tool fits the overall assessment. That's how I see it, at least.

...and would guess he probably DOES do that. But when he worked for GWB, military solutions tended to be the only ones Bush and Cheney wanted to hear...so even if he voiced the need for other tools, he may not have been heard. I am sure now that he is heard by Obama.

I just think our Democratic leaders are using a 'All Hands' strategy where each leader (cabinet and others) can voice a point of view...and get media coverage...and that doing so enhances the national debate. Remember, the media covers conflict. :7 That debate informs and educates and builds support for their policy (in this case, what to do in Afghanistan). JMHO.

public. I also understand Kerry's position in all this being multifaceted.

a negative one, also surprise because I came to respect and even like Gates. I don't know, we shall see what comes next, I guess...

The question was for everybody here, by the way :-)

and that it demonstrates why there needs to be civilian leadership.

I would guess that in the short term, it likely would be more comfortable for the military to have the strategy set, the tactics agreed upon and everything set in motion. People are able to tolerate different degrees of uncertainty - and it may be that the level has exceeded what Gates personally can tolerate.

But, the strategy depends on the what the underlying circumstances are and even McChrystal, as Kerry said, has said that a counterinsurgency approach depends on good governance. Counter terrorism doesn't have that dependency, but it needs at least some connection to the people (a bit of the things listed as what counterinsurgency is) or you don't get the intelligence needed for it. It seems clear that Obama is willing to wait, even using that wait, to push the Afghans to actions that will lead to their version of good governance.

...are part of diplomatic strategy. This is 'All Hands on Deck' in practice. They are working together...IMHO...to reach the same goal. I LOVE it!

a big difference in negotiating, coupled with the pressure on Karzai that both Kerry and Rahm Emanuel engaged in on Sunday.

As to Gates, I am viewing this as a "Push/Pull" strategy, and I am thinking that Tay Tay may have a point that yes there is a "debate" going on in the Administration and members of Congress BUT this is not a major fight left vs. right dove vs. hawk kind of thing. The Gates statement may actually be an "assurance to Karzai" statement that no, Obama won't take too long to get the strategy in place. I seriously think the audience for all of this is the Afghan government, not an American audience which is far more focused on health care. Clinton seems to be in the "middle", which is the appropriate role for her at this point.

They say he will have a joint press conference with Kharzi today. (I would assume that means that something has been agreed to.)


http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-43294820091020

As I mentioned a few days ago, I am in Romania (still somewhat jet lagged), mostly just spending time with my very elderly mother. She is still much interested in what happens in the world, but her interests are more focused on local news, and things are at a completely crazy boiling point in ROmanian politics right now, with presidential elections a month away and a lot of infighting and name calling that make the famous "you lie!" incident seem like the most polite kind of small talk during an audience with the queen. Anyway, my point is that I do not have much time to keep up with what's happening, and even less the opportunity to watch things as they happen (though I caught a few glimpses of JK in Afghanistan last night during a late night run of the Situation Room). I just saw a beachmom diary on this on Kos, heading over there for what I am sure will be a great and thorough update.

Never...:7 I think his presence was crucial.

You know what? I am not a NYT reporter who has to be all neutral and disinterested.

John Kerry closed this deal, goshdarnit!!! Yes, lots of good people did tireless work, and most won't be in the newspaper. But among the "stars", Kerry is at the top of my list.

And it was "Democratics in Array," if such a thing can be said.

And you were right to put JK prominently in that diary. There are people, strange people, who use an innocent ommission of a name to discredit someone else. I didn't want a name left off of a list to give someone license to then claim that, "Oh Kerry didn't do any work, so-and-so did and you left them off and blah, blah, blah." That would be a sleight of hand to divert credit were it was truly due and Sen. Kerry deserves major credit for this. As do others. (Ah, you know the drill. Some people use small omissions for mischief comments to hijack the diary or thread. Well, clearly that has to happen because the disrupters want it to not because of an omission now.)

And it was and is a great diary. To hell with the naysayers.

His praise for Kerry was pretty effusive. Said he worked closely with Eikenberry and said he was extraordinarily helpful.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/33394794#33399195

...emanating from my house out west? ;)

...earthquake. :7

VERY nice to hear. And so well deserved. Kerry did something special here. Do you know when he is due back in the US (I still want him back)?

...When I went door-to-door for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008, I never knew what the reaction would be when the door was opened. It was great when I'd find another Kerry or Obama supporter. But when I DIDN'T, and they obviously didn't agree with me, I'd offer and/or leave them literature to read to provide them with information they were clearly missing. :7 Maybe at some point, they would think differently...maybe not. But my job, to inform them, was done.

Your posts INFORM. That makes a difference, even when people don't agree all the time. Never let the naysayers stop what you do. And yes, "John Kerry closed this deal, goshdarnit!" :7

Seriously now, interesting takes, the Karzai reassurance idea and the audience being mostly the Afghani government (and other closely interested parties abroad, I would add).