Kerry commentary in Newsweek

on Afghanistan

I know it will not impress the lefty freaks, but it really is one of the few comprehensive, thoughtful positions that any one in either party has put out. It will be interesting to see how many Kerry ideas and phrases end up in common usage in speaking of the alternatives. He, more than anyone, has made the point that this can't be just a military effort and that good enough governance is needed. With Britain also demanding that Afghanistan institute reforms, it will be interesting to see if there are any substantial things Karzai does to change things.

Both here and in the CFR speech, Kerry made the same chilling point of seeing looks on people seeing him in a heavily armored vehicle that reminded him of the looks in Vietnam. That and the comment here that this really is an Afghan war that Afghans will decide - just as he said of Iraq and Pakistan with respect to their wars, really show a very different mind set than those who saw the US power as infinite in changing those countries.

On this issue, JK really has been the steady, consistent, truthful voice of the American Conscience since 1971.

The revisionist history is the lead cover story. This in spite of things like MacNamara's effort in the 1990s to unambiguously speak the truth he failed to speak for decades.

Kerry's willingness to speak the truth on Vietnam here is incredibly important. The revisionists are implicitly denying that the US did not have the power to "win" a civil war for a side that did not have the support of the country. It is scary that what had been a minority view in the 1970s and 1980s, is threatening to become a majority view. A NYT oped spoke of the books that the military and the administration were reading on Vietnam. The one the military was reading had as a belief that we had won by the late 1960s, but lost when we stopped funding Vietnam in the 1970s. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=273&topic_id=159944

One difference Senator Kerry sees in the two situations seem to be that there was a national security reason to start a war here, that did not exist in Vietnam. It is interesting that, unlike in either war with Iraq, he has never spoken of the possibility of either more diplomacy with the Taliban or whether something short of war could have worked. This was a war that seems to have passed the test of last resort. That he brings this up 9 years later, has to mean that he believes that the danger would return with a full scale return to power of the Tabiban.

The other difference that the Viet Cong had popular support and the Taliban has little suggests a "good enough" government could gain the support of people. In the SFRC hearings, many experts spoke of the Taliban being hated and there seems very good reason to hate them as they were very oppressive. But, a skeptical part of me, knows that the witnesses to the committee were not randomly selected and in the 1960s, there would have been many Saigon area Vietnamese (especially the Catholics) who honestly would have answered in the same way about the Viet Cong.

No two situations are ever exactly comparable, but I can't help but wonder whether the observed popular support of the Viet Cong was not at least partly based on nationalism where the VC was seen as the force fighting an outside power occupying their country. In addition, it was also the strongest force opposing a very corrupt government in power. Kerry has in the past spoken of having only a small window to get things right. The real question is whether Kerry was right then and the opportunity was lost years ago. Can Karzai change and if he can, are Afghans still able to change their opinion on his government or are they too deeply formed?

Clearly, Kerry has not reached the point that MacNamara did on Vietnam that it could not be won - but compared to most of DC, he is getting close to that. I completely trust his honesty, but I wonder if his innate optimism, that is reinforced by the same optimism from many people, who spoke at the SFRC and who are doing good work in Afghanstan, might keep him from reaching the conclusion that many do from the case he makes. It may be that long term, no one can win a civil war for a corrupt government. Kerry has said that there is no military solution that can win by itself. It may be the next step is that Kerry has to look deeper at the social/government side and make an analysis that is as clear eyed as his 1971 analysis on Vietnam as to whether Karzai and the people around him really have the desire or ability to raise above the level of corruption they have and provide good governance. (This might be much harder (and I assume 1971 was tough) for Kerry because of his deep belief in being able to help countries by helping their governments make life better for them.)

Lots to chew on in this. The revisionists have been fighting over Vietnam ever since 1975. They see the loss in that misbegotten war as a political event, not a military one, and blame people like Kerry and others for the loss of the political will of the American people. (McCain held this view, though he moderated his view of certain people like Kerry. The idea that the war was betrayed on the civilian and political side has fueled the neocon side ever since. I think it's why Colin Powell, among others, was so uncomfortable with the neocons and they with him.)

The neocon view has not gone away, it has changed semantics. It still sees a grand and noble cause in trying to remake countries with overwhelming force. They believe the very negative side of American exceptionalism that says since America is so special in world history we can make our own moral rules in terms of how we treat other countries. The Bush Doctrine, as it were, called for preemptive war and basically justified the means by the ends desired. The neocons had a dangerous utopian vision of remaking the world in America's image. Anyone who didn't agree was violating their view of the special rights of America and doubting the national myth that anything "we" did was inherently right because "we" were doing it and we were the exceptional country, acting when no other country could. (The amount of hubris in this is just, ah, stunning. That this argument has merely changed clothes and is now flying under another banner is also, ah, stunning.)

Sen. Kerry is, in a way, reminding us again that this neocon idea is a version of the Emperor's New Clothes, an idea unclothed in logic or reality. There is no grand plan that can succeed in Afghanistan without the willing acceptance of the Afghan people. We have to be realists about that. It didn't work in Vietnam, the proxy game failed. The Vietnamese didn't buy the grand plan that Vietnam was a mere proxy in the cold war. The Afghanis also believe a war in Afghanistan is about, well, them. Ah, well, it is, isn't it?

Again, I love the good Senator's logic. His point is so important. Which side will Obama listen to, those who say that "we" can win a "long war" without the people of Afghanistan or those who say that we can only assist Afghanistan in overcoming it's own problems and be international police in helping to curb terrorism and prevent Al Qaeda from getting a comfy spot to settle into in that area.

the way he writes: "58,000 American troops died because they were sent into battle based on false assumptions, flawed goals, and faulty strategies."

Senator John F. Kerry, who came to national prominence when he testified before Congress as a Vietnam war hero turned antiwar activist, is now warning against those who are pushing for a troop buildup in Afghanistan by asserting that more forces could have turned the tide in Vietnam.

“Let me be clear: More than 58,000 American troops died because they were sent into battle based on false assumptions, flawed goals, and faulty strategies. Yes, we adopted smarter tactics near the end, but by then the die was cast,’’ Kerry, who is now chairman of the same committee he addressed in 1971, writes in the Nov. 16 issue of Newsweek magazine.

The Massachusetts Democrat, who is among those cautioning President Obama against sending the full force of 40,000 additional US troops sought by the top commander in Afghanistan, says while there are some similarities with Vietnam, it is dangerous to draw too many parallels with Afghanistan, a “very different country . . . in a different era.’’

“The main lesson that Obama must absorb from Vietnam is the necessity to explain our goals in Afghanistan, and to choose clear and realistic strategies to meet them,’’ Kerry adds.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/11/11/kerry_warns_on_vietnam_parallels/


The comments are somewhat better than usual - though there are the typical RW smears. (What I find really weird is the constant need to say he has no expertise because he served just 4 months (though that ignores most of his Naval service). I have never seen the same people say that Bush, Cheney or Hillary Clinton all with ZERO Vietnam experience have too little experience to speak. This tells me they are defensive - that they do know he knows what he is speaking about.