JK mentioned prominently in article on Obama's Afghanistan advisers

[karynnj]

(after paragraph of Powell being cautious)

Mr. Powell is one of the three people considered by White House aides to be most influential in this current debate — former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Senator John F. Kerry and Senator Jack Reed — have all expressed varying degrees of doubt about the prospect of sending more forces to Afghanistan.

Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has warned of repeating the mistakes of Vietnam, where he served, and has floated the idea of a more limited counterterrorist mission. Mr. Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and an Army veteran, has not ruled out supporting more troops but said “the burden of proof” is on commanders to justify it.

<skip>
In an interview, Senator Kerry, who met with Admiral Mullen last week, said that he has not made up his mind about the troop buildup but “we have to ask some very tough questions about that, questioning the underlying assumptions.” In Vietnam, he said, “the underlying assumptions were flawed and the number of troops weren’t going to make a difference.”

Senator Reed, who met with Mr. Biden, was more measured, but said the president needs to look at the capacity of Afghan forces and the prospects of reconciliation with moderate Taliban members. “You have to evaluate several options very vigorously — one to give you confidence in the decision and two, because you want to make sure you have the best operational plan to carry out the strategy,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/asia/27military.html

Biden is mentioned as wanting an alternative to a troop build up; Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton are listed as hawks. There is also discussion of where various prominent military people stand. I don't know how to interpret the comment on "three most influential". If the journalist got it right, that is really promising that there will be the best possible attempt to look at the real pros and cons. It also should mean that the NYT and other MSM should be covering the SFRC hearings on this.

[Inuca]

1. You posted while I was typing :-) n/t

[karynnj]

2. lol

It is a good article.

Posted a less JK centric post in GD-P - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8671637

[Luftmensch067]

3. I'm glad there are smart people weighing in on this

I've been thinking that the President *could* sell sending more forces to Afghanistan, but not blindly, not just throwing numbers of troops over there. Maybe not more, but different or, at least, with a different goal. From what I can gather from what's written here, JK is saying the same sort of thing he's said before, that you do the job with fewer people, but with a more specialized, targeted mission. I still haven't managed to watch the SFRC Afghanistan hearing that was recently on so I have a lot to learn and a lot to catch up on, but it seems to me that the Obama administration must find a way to hone in on exactly what they want to do in the region and then find a way to do it while bringing the majority of the troops home. I think there's a way to reframe this whole conflict, maybe more in terms of aid and counterterrorism, rather than rebuilding the country from the ground up. I'd love to hear more informed thoughts on this!

[wisteria]

4. You are right, there should be more coverage of the SFRC hearing on Afghanistan. n/t

[ProSense]

5. Op-ed

by Kerry posted here

[karynnj]

6. Very thoughtful statement and very clear on what Obama is doing

taking time to make the choice.

GD-P is crazy - I really don't know where they are coming from.