Kerry: US Can't Narrow Afghanistan Mission

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

(10-26) 10:14 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Sen. John Kerry warns that a major U.S. troop pullout could trigger civil war in Afghanistan, adding that a small-scale counterterror campaign is not an alternative to the broader military campaign under way.

Kerry's stance appears to repudiate anti-war Democrats and others who question calls to deepen the U.S. stake in the eight-year war. But Kerry wouldn't endorse a major military increase as advocated by the commanding U.S. general in Afghanistan. Kerry says Gen. Stanley McChrystal's plan goes too far, too fast.

Kerry told the Council on Foreign relations any backpedalling by the U.S. would destabilize Pakistan.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/26/national/w101432D56.DTL

[TwilightGardener]

1. While I agree that a rapid pullout isn't the answer, I don't know why

we can't begin to narrow the mission somewhat, to counterterror only--I mean, that was the original mission. Someone is going to have to explain to me why a counterinsurgency against the Taliban and nationbuilding is in our best interests.

[Oregone]

2. Yes, we couldn't have them fight themselves

So we will give them target practice opportunities in the meantime

[TwilightGardener]

3. Boy, this thread is quiet, isn't it? Crickets...

I expected more ruckus.

[WriteDown]

4. Some shock I am sure. nt

[TwilightGardener]

5. Well, I admit my own surprise, I didn't know this was Kerry's position.

Since he opposed McChrystal's recs, I assumed that meant he wasn't for enlarging the war effort into counterinsurgency, which would seem to mean he wanted some winding down or narrowing our efforts there. But now I don't know what he wants--I hope he's not advocating a status-quo position, after 8 years of backsliding.

[WriteDown]

8. I have a feeling...

he was told that if he wanted to play then he would have to say what he is told to say.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Kerry heads a foreign policy think tank, and he was addressing the CFR--

in addition to being Chairman of SFRC. I doubt he'd succumb to any pressure from anyone to publicly espouse a foreign policy position he doesn't believe in. My guess is that he's clarifying and building on his earlier statements from the past couple weeks.

[wisteria]

22. Nonsense, I have followed Kerry long enough to knows this was his decision

and he made it after carefully weighing all sides. Kerry would not put our troops into harms way if it wasn't necessary and with the prospect of a positive outcome.

[karynnj]

28. Seriously unlikely

In the first place this is consistent with his 2006 speech at Faneuil Hall in terms of the goals.

[karynnj]

27. Look at the range of articles - the fact is that his position is in the middle

He thinks McChrystal's is doing too much too fast - and he is concerned that without some connection to the population and protecting them, you will not get good, consistent intelligence information for counter terrorism.

You scanned the whole speech - is what he spoke of the status quo?

[Le Taz Hot]

39. Kerry was for the war before he was against it . . .

before he was for it. This is the man who lost to the worst. president. ever.

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. Ruckus?

Listen to to his speech and Q&A. You can watch it http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/26/HP/R/24668/Policy+Decisions+Should+Follow+Election+Results+Says+Sen+Kerry.aspx">here I hate people who jump on a few quotes by the media.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Well, I'm not going to do an hour of video right now. So you're saying

these quotes were taken out of context, then?

[fedupinBushcountry]

15. I'm saying

instead of being lazy and not even wanting to comprehend a complex situation. I'm not going to do it for you.

[TwilightGardener]

16. LOL. You're right, shame on me for responding to a news article.

[MidwestRick]

6. Oh well

pull our troops out now.

[Winterblues]

7. Sure a different Kerry than the Presidential Candidate of 2004

That Kerry said unambiguously that the "War of Terror" was not and that it was a crime fighting situation and NOT a military one..He was roundly criticized by Bush*/Cheney for that stance..

[karynnj]

30. The problem here is that they are facing both non-state terrorist and

insurgents. Here, what he is speaking of is protecting the villages that side with us security. It is not invading countries.

[FarCenter]

11. A civil war would be a good thing

Once it breaks out, we can assist the side we like best.

A decisive victory would result in a stable situation going forward.

[Flaneur]

13. You're funny.

[FarCenter]

14. I'm serious

The US policy in Afghanistan and in other places seems to be to keep a lid on civil conflicts with the result that they fester for decades on end. A clean victory would be better than continual conflict.

[Flaneur]

18. Okay, you're not funny.

What do you think we did when we invaded eight years ago? We supported one side in a civil war, the Northern Alliance, to drive out the Taliban. How's that working out?

And now you would like to generate even more conflict, more deaths, more destruction? How about we just get the fuck out of there? It's not our country, Al Qaeda is long gone, and all we're accomplishing is the creation of more and more people who hate us.

[FarCenter]

19. The problem is that we stopped supporting the Northern Alliance

Bowing to pressure from Pakistan, we switched positions to aid the Pashtuns, starting with the Loya Jirga (a Pashtun institution) and installing Hamid Karzai (a Pashtun) as our puppet in Kabul.

The government should have been composed primarily of the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazara and Turkmen of the Northern Alliance, who were the winners against the Pashtun Taliban.

[Zorra]

17. Kucinich: Military Presence in Afghanistan is Counterproductive

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has been a leading advocate against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, today made the following statement after the Washington Post and other media outlets reported that the Pentagon has authorized the deployment of an additional 13,000 troops to Afghanistan to primarily serve in a support capacity:

“It is not simply combat troops that present a problem, but our entire military presence is counterproductive to our security. Sending additional military personnel indicates that we are deepening our military involvement in Afghanistan.

“Afghanistan is a nation of independent tribes that is rife with corruption. Nation building cannot come from the barrel of a gun. Instead the United States should work with Afghanistan’s neighbors to help provide regional security to allow the Afghan people to rebuild their nation. It is time that Congress takes control of this war by eliminating its funding and bringing our troops home.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/47018

Kucinich led the effort in the House against going into Iraq in 2002. Wise move.

Kerry voted for the IWR in 2002. (buzzer sounds). Bad decision.

I'm going with the guy with the proven better judgment in serious issues such as life and death and national security.

[karynnj]

24. Do you seriously think that Iran and Pakistan together could make Afghanistan stable?

You do know that Pakistan's ISI helped put the Taliban in power.

[bertman]

20. President Obama needs to learn a lesson on negotiating from the Military-Industrial-

Corporate Complex. Those guys come to the table with an outrageous offer in the form of General McChrystal "leaking" that he must have 40,000 new troops or we'll lose Vietghanistan. President Obama is rocked back on his heels and faced with looking like a wuss if he doesn't 1) call McChrystal to heel for his insubordination; 2) give in to what's basically MICC blackmail; 3) send more troops so it doesn't look like he's running away from a fight.

In the meantime, the President uses Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Kerry to negotiate with President Karzai so there can be an actual election instead of a ballot box stuffing contest. Then, Senator Kerry takes the totally unpredictable position (not) of saying that we cannot possibly pull out of Vietghanistan or we'll destabilize Pakistan or cause a civil war in Vietghanistan.

So, the MICC effectively gets what it sought in the first place: a continuing war with more troops, probably 20,000 in addition to the 17,000 already in the pipeline. And the President gets to look like he is not a wuss thanks to his friend John Kerry who gave him a low-end negotiating offer of staying in Vietghanistan without a MAJOR troop buildup.

I can't wait to see how the ChessMaster plays this one.

[Nihil]

38. I think your reading of the situation is spot on.

> So, the MICC effectively gets what it sought in the first place: a continuing
> war with more troops, probably 20,000 in addition to the 17,000 already in the
> pipeline. And the President gets to look like he is not a wuss thanks to his
> friend John Kerry who gave him a low-end negotiating offer of staying in
> Vietghanistan without a MAJOR troop buildup.

:applause:

[wisteria]

21. This seems to be the only wise choice and I bet it was a hard decision for Kerry to make.

I trust his judgment on this.

[lefty369]

23. Kerry is right

like it or not we are there for the long hall. Plus with the situation next store in Pakistan and the Iran situation it is only a matter of time before major troop intervention is needed i'm afraid.

[wuushew]

25. I know of no "Iranian situation" that requires U.S. action

perhaps you could spell it out.

[Arctic Dave]

26. My memory may be fuzzy, wasn't Afghanistan already in a civil war BEFORE

we showed up......again. As for Pakistan, when you are ruled by military dictator your country is always in a state of Instability.

[karynnj]

31. Pakistan got rid of their military dictator, replacing him with the democratically elected Zadari.

(In Afghanistan the Northern Alliance was fighting the Taliban as you suggest.)

[Arctic Dave]

33. You are right. Pakistan did have an election but the military is still pretty much in control.

And it is no more or less stable.

[karynnj]

35. The army certainly is a force and it is very clear they intend

to be subservient to no one. Pakistan really is a powder keg.

[optimator]

29. where is this in the constitution?

where does it say we have any business preventing civil wars in other nations?
is that "the mission" now?

[excess_3]

32. pullout --> civil war .... OK, what is the downside? .nt

[goforit]

34. You go Kerry!!!! Protect those OPIUM FIELDS!!! Just like your Great Grandaddy did.

[karynnj]

36. This title distorts the speech

Kerry is calling for a change in strategy - fp captured the spirit better:

We cannot and we should not undertake a manpower-intensive counterinsurgency operation on a national scale in Afghanistan," said Kerry, D-MA, sounding a lot like his Senate cohort Carl Levin, D-MI, who has also advocated for a strategy centered around building up Afghan forces, not adding U.S. combat soldiers.

"I am convinced, from my conversations with General Stanley McChrystal ... he understands the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area," Kerry went on, "But I believe his current plan reaches too far too fast."

Kerry said that the key questions were whether or not there was a credible Afghan force to partner with, whether local leaders who were on board, and whether the U.S. would follow a troop increase with increased development assistance.

Overall, his speech very much expressed an interest in narrowing the goals in Afghanistan and separating "hardcore" Taliban from those that could be convinced to lay down arms.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/26/white_house_nearing_decision_on_afghanistan_kerry_says_general_mcchrystal_plan_reac

(thanks to Beachmom for link in another thread)

[PurityOfEssence]

37. How can you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?

Hey kids, it's easy: don't stop making the mistake, and you'll continue asking people to die with no chance of them being the last one!

Kerry is a blockhead, and party unity is not as important as human decency or basic acknowledgment of reality.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Karzai's government is not worth one drop of American blood

The US cannot provide security to the Afghan people, even if we were to send half a million troops. We might as well bring all the troops home, and let Afghanistan return to tribal rule.