CNN: "Kerry: Obama would be irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan now"

[karynnj]

"Sen. John Kerry cautioned President Obama Saturday against raising troop levels in Afghanistan, saying it would be "entirely irresponsible" to do so while the Afghan government remains in turmoil following national elections.

"It would be entirely irresponsible for the president of the United States to commit more troops to this country, when we don't even have an election finished and know who the president is and what kind of government we're working in, with," Kerry told CNN's John King in an interview set to air Sunday at 9 a.m. on State of The Union.

<snip>
Speaking from Afghanistan, Kerry, who is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. should listen to the advice of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in that country.

"When our own, you know, commanding general tells us that a critical component of achieving our mission here is, in fact, good governance, and we're living with a government that we know has to change and provide it, how could the president responsibly say, oh, they asked for more, sure, here they are?," Kerry said.

Very strong and very clever pointing out that McChrystal said good governance is a critical component. The only way the hawks refute this is to say:

- Good governance is not needed
or
- Afghanistan has good governance

Either one sounds dumb.

It seems clear that Senator Kerry, who was concerned from information given in the SFRC hearings, is more certain now that he has seen and spoken to people in Afghanistan - this will be a great interview to see tomorrow.

[blm]

1. Absolutely looking forward to this now. Sounds like he's backing ALL the hawks into a corner.

.

[blm]

2. Can you put this in GD or GDP?

I really think people need to get behind him on this.

[karynnj]

4. I acyually copied this and went over - and a non JK group person already had

which is really better.

[wisteria]

3. This bides Obama some time, and it is a reasonable and practical approach.

The only issue is the soldiers who are there now and need further assistance or another strategy to protect their lives.

[YvonneCa]

5. I agree that the soldiers ( including one related to me) who are there now...

...are owed our BEST strategy and our BEST support. That is why I voted Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008...I know they will do all in their power to be SURE our troops have both. Kerry will be an excellent judge of conditions in Afghanistan, and I am confident that Obama will take his views seriously.

[wisteria]

9. I did not know you had a relative serving over there. I will pray he remains out of harms way. n/t

[YvonneCa]

10. Thank you, wisteria. He's only...

...22 years old, and his parents are worried sick. We all appreciate the prayers very much.

[MH1]

11. If we aren't sending more troops to adequately staff the missions we've committed to

we need to pull back from some of those areas. NPR had a colonel (general?) on who lost his son in Afghanistan because they sent his son's unit but didn't send the engineer unit to build the infrastructure the mission required. The combat unit troops were sitting ducks for insurgent attacks. The colonel said that what happened to his son's unit was not unique, this was how it was throughout the more rural areas. Sure, he's a grieving parent but it sounds very realistic based on the casualty numbers, and knowing how BushCo TOTALLY screwed this up. (This is NOT "Obama's War", even if the media is successful in planting that notion.)

The mission MUST change - even if we send some troops, there is NO WAY we can send the massive numbers that would actually be needed. Remember Shinseki's pre-invasion assessment of Iraq? Why would Afghanistan require fewer troops? The terrain is more forbidding and the tribalism more entrenched.

[beachmom]

6. Fascinating. Looks like BLM & I jumped the gun a bit.

Very interested in viewing those interviews tomorrow.

[karynnj]

7. Maybe not

I agree with your comment in the GD-P thread that we need to see the context this comment was in. It also is speaking only of the present, though I don't know how governance could be improved over night. (I know nothing of the other guy in the run off - but it is hard to believe it is a Bush/Obama type difference.)

There has been an intensity, focus and emotion in Kerry's comments on this. After years of quoting MacNamara staying silent, I really think he could not stay silent if he thought the policy was wrong. This is exactly the issue he was willing to throw away the possibility of a political career for in 1971. It is also not clear that Obama has made a decision.

(I think the media amplifies anything that makes escalation seem more likely. )

[blm]

12. actually, the orchestrated part would still be right, with Kerry playing tough against the hawks

and maybe Obama will use Kerry's points and PUBLIC VOICE to back down the hawks to the place he WANTS to be. And maybe it was the hawks leaking those stories who jumped the gun believing Obama was more committed to their view than he was.

Clinton used to do that to various lawmakers. They would leave his office believing he was committed to their cause or view.

[fedupinBushcountry]

13. Looks like the administration

is listening to JK. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/rahm-emanuel-no-troop-esc_n_325099.html">Rahm Emanuel: No Troop Escalation Until "Careful Assessment" of Afghan Government

[blm]

14. Yep - looks like Obama, Biden and Kerry set it up. They let the hawks have their leaks and lowered

the boom.

As Yvonne has said, we are really lucky to have Biden and Kerry so closely advising Obama.

[ProSense]

8. Video

posted here