Excerpts From Senator John Kerry's Speech On Afghanistan

[ProSense]

10/26/2009

Excerpts From Senator John Kerry's Speech On Afghanistan

The Current Debate Is Fundamentally Flawed

“In recent weeks, politics has reduced an extraordinarily complex country and mission to a simple, headline-ready “yes or no” on troop numbers. That debate is completely at odds with reality. What we need, above all, what our troops deserve-- and what we haven’t had-- is a comprehensive strategy, military and civilian combined.”

A Smarter Approach

“I am convinced from my conversations with General Stanley McChrystal that he understands the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area. But I believe his current plan reaches too far, too fast. We do not yet have the critical guarantees of governance and development capacity. I also have serious concerns about the ability to produce effective Afghan forces to partner with, so we can ensure that when our troops make heroic sacrifices, the benefits to the Afghans are clear and sustainable.”

Three Conditions

We should not provide additional troops to a new area without meeting three conditions:

• “First, are there enough reliable Afghan forces to partner with American troops—and eventually to take over responsibility for security? The quickest way out of Afghanistan for our troops is to speed up the training and mentoring of the Afghan National Army and police so that they can defend their own country.”
  
  
• “The second question to ask is, are there local leaders we can partner with? We must be able to identify and cooperate with tribal, district and provincial leaders who command the authority to help deliver services and restore Afghans’ faith in their own government.”
  
  
• “Third, is the civilian side ready to follow swiftly with development aid that brings tangible benefits to the local population? When they support our troops, Afghans need to see their lives improve.”

The President Decides

“Under the right circumstances, if we can be confident that military efforts can be sustained and built upon, then I would support the President should he decide to send some additional troops to regain the initiative. Let me be clear: Absent an urgent strategic imperative, we need a valid assessment by the President and other appropriate civilian authorities – not just the military -- that those three conditions will be met before we consider sending more soldiers and Marines to clear new areas.”

Video

[TwilightGardener]

1. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with counterinsurgency and the nation building

that must accompany it. I didn't agree with it in Iraq--we lost most of our troops during the surge, and our efforts there may yet unravel. Afghanistan is more difficult than Iraq--the likelihood of long-term Taliban, Afghan Government and civilian cooperation from our efforts is low, IMO. There's just too little solid ground to build on. And after 8 years, THIS is where we are?

[ProSense]

3. Kerry explicitly spoke out against nation building. n/t

[fedupinBushcountry]

4. Ignore him/her ProSense

I posted the link for him to watch but he doesn't have time to, but has plenty of time to rant on a few quotes. I also refuse to answer someone who refuses to seek out the info on his own.

K&R
:kick:

[TwilightGardener]

7. I don't want to watch the whole damn thing, and don't need to, if quotes

and excerpts are in proper context. And I'm a lady, BTW. But I have always appreciated ProSense's dedication to presenting this kind of info, whether I agree with the contents or not.

[karynnj]

10. The quotes were given in no context at all - so how could they be in

proper context. This is not an effort to create a perfect western democracy or a well functioning economy - that is a paraphrase of one thing said. In addition, he called McChrystal's plan too ambitious.

The fact is that the US will not leave. Given that, the question is what plan would have the best chance to meet our goals. The pieces added to counterterrorism are some civilian help and protecting villages that are on our side. I think the comments that counter terrorism alone has a problem as you lose the intelligence needed to do it and the that it can create more terrorists than it kills. It is also true that this is consistent with what Kerry said in 2006 (Sept 9 - national security speech at Faneuil Hall) and it is consistent with what Obama ran on.

[TwilightGardener]

15. I skimmed the transcript--everything is as it appears, meaning-wise.

He's sort of crafted a middle way, in his speech--a little nation building, a limited counterinsurgency, no reduction or major increase in forces, etc. This may very well be the route Obama is planning on. But after 8 years, and an increasing toll on our troops and our economy, I feel that this might be more of a shit-or-get-off-the-pot moment. Either ramp it up and fire up the American people to undertake one final big effort, or announce that you will wind it down (however cautiously, and maintaining as much troop security and counter-terror intelligence as possible). I am for winding it down, despite my fears about Pakistan.

[karynnj]

17. Nice summary and I won't quibble with words

Where I disagree is that I agree with Kerry that the two extremes would have major problems. The side of winding it down could leave Afghanistan the failed state it was in the 1980s when the USSR fell. That is what led to Taliban in the first place. This would be a disaster for anyone who helped us in the least. We have not made them better in 8 years.

On the other side, as Kerry states, a full blown counterinsurgency would take not the 40,000 more troops, but as many as 400,000 Afghani and outside troops. What Kerry changes is what the soldiers would do. I would think if villages really did see their lives become better allying with us, more villages would do so. This would gradually lead to a stronger Afghanistan.

If Kerry is correct, and he carefully checks major details and the Taliban really has not popularity outside the Pastun areas, this really could work well in many areas.

[TwilightGardener]

6. I don't think you can have one without the other. To successfully

defang the Taliban, and turn civilians away from them and toward their government, will take more than money--it will take a functioning economy, and jobs, and infrastructure, and services. (That's shit we can barely provide HERE right now.) It would take a very massive effort, bigger than any of us want, and I'm not sure how much it would help in the no-man's-land regions that threaten to destabilize Pakistan.

[ProSense]

8. You're suggesting nation building is the only way to successfully defeat the Taliban?

What exactly are you arguing: That we ignore them because you believe only nation building will work and it's too "massive" an effort?

Good thing you're not making the decision.

[TwilightGardener]

9. We almost defeated the Taliban in the early years.

But I don't see defeating them now--not in the short term, and not ultimately with military action. However, I'm not sure it's necessary--they're not popular nationwide, according to Kerry, and they're just filling the vacuum and providing services where the US and the Afghan gov isn't--or can't be. What IS necessary is keeping them from perpetrating or supporting terrorist activity against the US. I agree with Kerry that we can't have a rapid large-scale pullout, and that we should concentrate on the Afghan/Pakistan border area in terms of military presence, to create a barrier to keep AQ from re-establishing and expanding beyond that region, but I don't think our military can provide much beyond this. To build this country into something that it NEVER WAS to begin with--culturally, economically, or government-wise--was NOT our original mission, and isn't within our military and economic reality right now. So I'd have to say I'm on the Joe Biden Counterterror team--start to narrow the mission. I'm not into a counterinsurgency, even in a limited area, because that doesn't necessarily help with anti-terror efforts. Might just inflame more anti-US sentiment.

[karynnj]

13. Those are valid points

A counter argument would be that a mission completely limited to counter terrorism, and I am not sure that is JB's position, would mean that ALL the Afghanis would see from us are bombs and drones, that will sometimes hit innocent people. This will actually become more of a problem over time as our intelligence becomes worse. This seems to me to have even more potential to add to anti-US sentiment, as it has in Pakistan.

Kerry is aware of the danger or being seen as an occupier and spoke of how it was a problem even if our intentions are the best. Many things he said argued for cultural sensitivity and other things to diminish this.

[karynnj]

12. If you listened to the speech, part of couterinsurgency

is to have a basic functioning economy (not first world), jobs, infrastructure and services. Kerry speaks of doing this in areas of the country where we can, in conjunction with their leaders. Making their lives better as soon as they join us and providing some protection are what counterinsurgency has that counterterrorism doesn't. (It really might be better to view or listen to the speech before commenting on it.

[sandnsea]

19. What do you define as nation building?

Because I believe everybody, in the entire world, is on board with assiting Afghanistan in becoming a secure and functioning nation.

[sandnsea]

2. CFR has the full text

Still going through it.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/20505

[TwilightGardener]

11. Thanks for the link.

[beachmom]

5. This was an excellent speech that laid out a "middle ground" on

how to proceed in Afghanistan. Most notable is how Kerry instilled "realism" throughout. He disagrees with Gen. McChrystal:

http://washingtonindependent.com/65185/kerry-on-afghanistan

“I am convinced from my conversations with General Stanley McChrystal that he understands the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area. But I believe his current plan reaches too far, too fast. We do not yet have the critical guarantees of governance and development capacity. I also have serious concerns about the ability to produce effective Afghan forces to partner with, so we can ensure that when our troops make heroic sacrifices, the benefits to the Afghans are clear and sustainable.”

[bertman]

14. More justifying the unjustifiable. We went into Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda. We did that

or pushed them into Pakistan. Now it's time to go home.

The truth is that Kerry, Obama, and every other high-ranking politician in America except a precious few, are going to say that we must stay in a war zone because WAR IS WHAT KEEPS THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-CORPORATE COMPLEX IN BUSINESS. And our politicians are owned by the MICC. No matter what the situation is the military leaders always want more troops.

We have become an Imperial War Machine instead of an independent democracy.

[beachmom]

16. It is amazing how many people, when hit with something they disagree with,

immediately jump to the conspiracy theory explanation.

Sorry, but a Taliban run Afghanistan OR a civil war Afghanistan is fertile ground for al Qaeda to return and once again have a safe haven. Afghanistan does not need to be perfect; it simply needs to be reasonably stable and largely not in Taliban hands. Kerry's approach is realistic.

[Cha]

20. Many on here do Not want to

deal in reality..only how they would like it to be.

[bertman]

21. You overlook the obvious, beachmom. If we're so worried about al Qaeda coming back

into Vietghanistan we do not need to have a hundred thousand American troops stationed there to keep that from happening. All we have to do is put their government on notice that when they return, we will destroy them as soon as we get our first opportunity. We have weaponry that can pinpoint these people and destroy them remotely anywhere in that country. We have satellite surveillance that can locate them anywhere on the planet. Remember when President Clinton hesitated to bomb an al Qaeda site in Afghanistan because he wanted to be positive that Bin Laden was there? We wouldn't be operating under that constraint.

But that's too easy and does not require the massive outlay of weaponry, supplies, and support that enrich the MICC.

We're going to be involved in the War on Terra for years to come, no matter what President Obama says. We will be sacrificing our troops and our treasure and our national security there until we realize that we are being sucked dry by the vampires from the MICC.

Making Afghanistan reasonably stable and largely not in Taliban hands is the latest fallback excuse. I can hardly wait to hear what the next one is going to be.

In the meantime, I hope you do not have a beachson or beachdaughter who might be sacrificed for this hideous abomination of a foreign policy.

[YvonneCa]

22. What an awful thing to say. n/t

[bertman]

24. Why is that an awful thing to say, YvonneCa? That is the REALITY of this wetdream for

the MICC.

Having tended to the wounded and the dying and having seen firsthand the destruction wrought by our reckless use of military might I will NEVER again be quiet or downplay what the consequences are. I intend to be as forceful as I can in hopes that this madness might be stopped.

We Americans go to war via teevee while the Iraqis and Afghanis get to experience our adventures in imperialism for real. Warfare is hell on earth for those upon whom it is visited.

[TayTay]

23. Partially right, partially wrong

The fundamental nature of warfare is changing and what you call the MICC knows that and fears it. The future of weaponry is changing as is the definition of what gets targeted as part of war. We are starting to fall away from funding big, expensive operations that move large numbers of human beings around the globe and toward technological systems that can be run remotely. (This raises moral dilemmas by the score, but this is clearly the direction SecDef Gates is going in.)

The MICC, as you phrase it, will also be the medical community, involve biotech, agriculture, environmental and many other areas. What it won't be is what we now think of as the "defense" industry. Your point are semi-valid on that.

[sandnsea]

18. If we leave al qaeda to Pakistan

Pakistan will just return to their strategy of cooperating where possible and bribing where not possible. Bribing meaning giving them more money to bomb us.

If we leave Afghanistan to the Taliban, then even if Pakistan continues to fight al qaeda, they can just hop back over the border.

If we leave Afghanistan in the stone age, regardless of how or why they're there, that is just inhumane.

[jeanpalmer]

25. More bureaucratic slop

Just what I'd expected from Kerry. The ultimate equivocator. The kind of crap that lost him '04. Doesn't he ever learn? This guy needs to develop a set.

[unhappycamper]

26. We have no mission statement.

We have no exit strategy.

We're pissing away $180 million dollars a day days to keep our soldiers in that meat grinder.

How long do we wait for those mythical Afghan soldiers to train?

Has anyone at the Department of Death read history. Does anyone there care?