it seems that Kerry is attempting to do the testing every underlying assumption. I am not sure there is an exact equivalent Vietnam year, but 1965 may be closer. Someone on one of the talk shows yesterday (Will?) used 1965 when troops increased to 184,300 from 23,300. In 1965, there was not a huge amount of antiwar sentiment. What may be an equivalent to then was that Fullbright held his first round of hearings. One hopeful difference may be that Obama is not LBJ and Obama has in recent weeks used language that shows some impact from Kerry, either 1971 or recent years - saying he will not make decisions to save face.
1968 was from a MUCH higher point than we are now and there was already substantial agreement that we needed to find an exit. Doing so was in both parties 1968 platforms. It was also the point where troops levels started to decrease.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/U.S._Troop_levels_in_Vietnam_War I think Kerry is trying very hard to have hearings with good people representing each point of view ably and with knowledge and he is asking tough questions of all of them. To me, he is creating a public record that will provide support for taking a position. In this piece, there are echoes of things said in the hearings. For instance, several people latched onto the phrase "good enough governance once it was used - to his credit Kerry assigns authorship of the phrase to the expert who used it. In the second hearing, that idea became the basis of much discussion.
This week there will be a hearing on the impact on Pakistan. From last week's hearings, that was one of two things that Obama's original policy considered most important - the other being keeping AQ from using Afghanistan as a safe base. To me, this hearing represents a first step in building a solid case for whatever decision is to be made. I think the oped is an attempt to bring people into seeing the complexities of the decision process and to show the questions that need to be (and will be) addressed. It seems like the first steps in creating a proof (mathematics/science) or a case (law) for a recommendation. As Kerry is known to be an Obama confidant, there is some possibility that this emerging "case" could be useful as backup for Obama in defending the choice he makes.
I think Kerry will have a public position, that will be based on his own knowledge and all the input that he can get analyzed to the best of his ability. At this point, Kerry's hearings are public - as is this op-ed - and they are asking questions. In addition, the NYT says Kerry is one of the three people (outside the administration I think is implied) that Obama is influenced by.) I assume that Kerry is likely more decisive in what he says privately to the President. It may well be that Kerry speaking privately has more impact than Kerry taking a strong policy contrary to Obama's - as he did with Bush on "the path forward" or Kerry/Feingold. It might be that while he has great potential to influence behind the scenes, achieving real change even if he is not seen as the source, he will keep disagreements low key.
But, given the intensity of Kerry's comments on Iraq - such as - that he could not as a senator in good standing stay quiet when the policy is wrong, I think that if Kerry comes to find that he disagrees with Obama's plan, he will publicly disagree. Since March he has pointedly spoken of his concerns, especially the last time HRC testified.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
