NYT: "Kerry Backs Troop Surge Coupled With Strategy" (based on today's interviews)

[karynnj]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/us/politics/19talkshows.html?_r=1&hp THe NYT is officially schizophrenic on what Senator Kerry said. (Someone needs to explain that the logic here does not work. )

My letter to the author and to the editor:

The title on your article on Senator Kerry's comments on Afghanistan distorts them. What he said was that he thought it would be irresponsible to order the surge with the current state of the government. I agree that does not preclude him supporting the surge if that changed, but there was no Kerry quote that says this. Instead, it seems the NYT wanted a eye catching title, as Kerry has been among the most skeptical Senators on the surge.

The fact is there are two other NYT articles this weekend that have adressed Kerry's position. One quoted him speaking very positively of his friend, VP Biden's position. The other dealt with exactly the interview you reported on - and their take was the opposite. Here is what it said:

Kerry’s Word: Senator John Kerry, one of the Western officials working damage control in Kabul, said it would be irresponsible for the United States to consider sending additional troops Afghanistan. With the election results still pending amid allegations of fraud and President Obama facing contradictory recommendations from his cabinet on how to proceed in the region, Mr. Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said a decision must wait in taped remarks to be broadcast on CNN’s “State of the Union” this morning.

In a separate interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” today, Mr. Kerry directly addressed the conundrum facing President Obama, lending his voice to the Democratic discord.

“I don’t see how President Obama can make a decision about the committing of our additional forces or even the further fulfillment of our mission that’s here today without an adequate government in place or knowledge about what that government’s going to be,” he said.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/the-sunday-word-afghanistan/?scp=5&sq=john%20kerry&st=cse

The CBS comment actually questioned not just the surge, but the current mission. It is hard to believe that both of you are writing about the same two interviews. I hope this will not be the headline in tommorow's print edition.

[beachmom]

1. Oh, for crying out loud!!

Talk about going from one extreme (CNN yesterday) to another (NYT today).

I haven't watched the interviews yet, but it seems to me that the problem in Afghanistan is Karzai, and with him in charge, it's not going to work, no matter what "it" is.

[beachmom]

2. I think CNN had it right. The video helps for their case:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/kerry-irresponsible-to-send-more-troops-to-afghanistan-now.php?ref=fpb

[karynnj]

3. Exactly

Eric pointed out to me that the writer may not have written the headline as editors often do.

[blm]

4. I posted the contrast in GD - you should post your letter there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6808804&mesg_id=6808804

[MH1]

5. NPR this morning: Kerry might support surge, if election problems are resolved

I'm pretty sure it was the segment with Cokie Roberts and it seemed they were quite certain of Kerry's position.

I think this is consistent on Kerry's part. (In fact I was having trouble with the "listen to McChrystal" on one thing (must be a stable gov't) but not the other (must have more troops to make our strategy work))


I may be all wet here, but I think the strong statement by Kerry about Obama can't send more troops in the current situation, was at least partly to put pressure on Karzai to enter a power-sharing agreement with Abdullah. That is clearly the preferred outcome. Preferred over a runoff because the runoff just opens up new opportunities for fraud and other problems, plus drags things out more. And Karzai is dead set against a runoff but might consider power-sharing.

By the way, Karzai's major opponent, Abdullah, is in favor of the US sending more troops in a surge-like approach (i.e. with the idea that the increased troop strength will only be temporary).

[beachmom]

6. Yeah, I tend to agree. I finally got to see the two segments

of Kerry (on CNN & Face the Nation) last night. He seems to be saying he could back that approach IF x, y and z happen. As in, he thinks they can happen. He also clearly said he was against a purely "counterterrorism" approach, which in my view, is the only scenario short of withdrawal that would mean less troops.

Also, in that BG article, Khalizad (Bush's man in Afganistan before blundering and sending him to salvage Iraq) is there talking to the opposition. The fact that Bush's man is there (and this guy is Afghan-American and has a rapport with Karzai and many others there) means it is an all hands on deck situation.

I thought about it, and thing is this:

1. Obama specifically campaigned on putting his eye on the ball in Afghanistan
2. He is less than a year into his presidency. Kind of ridiculous to throw in the towel, after so little time.
3. Kerry always said we needed a change in "strategy" which is exactly what seems to be happening.
4. I have been unpersuaded by anti-war voices that we can pull out. Sorry, Russ.
5. Not only is it smart for Obama to put this on pause due to political concerns in Afghanistan. But also, for political concerns in America (i.e. the left). In fact, this is a good reason to get that public option into HCR. Because when Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan, the left might not notice as much, they are so giddy they got the public option.
6. Yes, I am being a bit evil with respect to #5.

That's all.

[blm]

7. and add medical marijuana policy into your #5...yes, there is theater involved, and

even a bit from Kerry, but, at least I can TRUST that Kerry will do his damndest to guide Obama to the most responsible strategy.

[karynnj]

9. Interesting summary - especially 5 and 6

(Not to mention, the liberals talk a big game, but they are going to vote for Obama in 2012 - what realistic choice do they have. No serious Democrat will run against him from the left. Clinton is to his right. Kerry won't. (wait to see cries for Biden to run against him - which he won't.) Other than Brentspeak and Saracat, no one will call for Edwards.

One quibble, in the SFRC, Russ Feingold was adamant that that he was not talking immediate withdrawal. Just as I think Feingold's early calls to withdraw from Iraq did not have the depth, strategy and complexity of Kerry's path forward or his original version of what became Kerry/Feingold. Here, I think that Feingold was trying to do the same thing - except the stakes are too high. But, I think this pause and refusal to commit to anything (and I think it was not unplanned that Kerry even said "current mission") is really the parallel to lever that the deadline was intended to be there.

[beachmom]

12. I believe Feingold called for a "flexible timetable for withdrawal"

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/guest/article_5e48bbbd-9b42-5fa5-8b65-da1d2de92fea.html

"Rather than doubling down on a strategy with objectives that could be unachievable, we should announce a flexible timetable to draw down our forces from Afghanistan. A timetable would defuse the perception that we are occupying that country, and help ensure that our presence does not fuel militancy and instability in the region."

More here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRV8ngca5Xc

I have no problem with Russ going in this direction. But he needs to come up with a plan. So far, it is just a "timetable". Kind of like August 2005 when he called for a timetable from Iraq but with no plan to go with it. It was only when Kerry joined him in the spring of '06 that the plan was created.

But I am willing to listen if he puts together a well thought out plan.

[TayTay]

8. I think that what is going on as well.

And the fact that Karzai is kicking and screaming on this is not a good sign. (This is a narco-state after all, run on drug money and warlordism. I wonder if Karzai is so far gone that he can't even agree to this power sharing because of all the internal deals with thugs that it undermines. I will try to keep a positive state of mind on this, but, God all these options just stink.)

We have to get to to "good enough" govt. I hope that Karzai sees some reason on that and agrees to the power-sharing. I really do.

[karynnj]

10. It is surreal to think of how Kharzi was presented to us

as the incredibly brave, noble savior of his country. I suspect that parts of that were actually real - just as the corruption is now. I wonder if part of the problem is also that some of the corruption seems to emanate from his brother. The narco state may have moved to controlling the government. (Another question is what, if anything, is known about Abdullah Abdullah. )

[TayTay]

11. Eight years is a long time in power

And Karzai has had to make a lot of compromises in his time as leader of that broken country.

I heard good things about Abdullah Abdullah, but that he is also a product of the Afghan system, which was corrupt. I believe I read that Abdullah was some thing of a reformer and I truly hope that is so. Afghanistan needs a real government and a real leader.

[beachmom]

13. I'm not trying to be condescending but has Afghanistan EVER had a "real government"?

And if not, why do we suddenly expect them to have one now? I agree with you on "good enough", but what if there is no good enough? What if it is just bad or worse?

Honestly, the fact that Holbrooke is getting into shouting matches and the Chairman of the SFRC is in breathless shuttle diplomacy mode does not give me a good feeling. As in, weirdly enough, Obama & the team was ready to beef things up, but everything may change if Karzai does not cooperate. This definitely was not what I was expecting.