Great read from Politico

[jillan]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28590.html

The title has nothing to do with the piece. I actually found it while googling Hillary just to see what she is doing these days - with Kerry doing his magic in Afghanistan and Biden smoothing out rough edges in Europe - I was wondering where Hillary was, and I stumbled upon this. Thought you'd enjoy :hi:

[beachmom]

1. Thank you for posting. I had not read this article.

This was overall a very good article. Most notable was that it delved into Kerry history and compared it to his work in 1991 as chairman of the POW/MIA from Vietnam committee, and his diplomatic work in Vietnam and Cambodia. No other newspaper did that. I also really liked this quote below:

“I’ve done this for a while, but I had one of the more interesting personal journeys, if you will, talking with about Afghan history, about his family, their tribe, his father, their long history in Afghanistan and its politics, the period of Soviet domination, the Taliban,” Kerry told reporters outside the White House.


“He took me on a personal tour of the old palace where the king lived. He showed me what the Taliban did to the tapestries. We walked around his personal residence at great length, just talking about the challenges of the country. And it was really, you know, as personal and as intriguing and productive as, I think, this kind of endeavor could be.”

Really interesting stuff!

[karynnj]

2. I liked that too because it kind of answered what they could have spoken of for days

It sounds like Kerry took the time to show his interest in getting to really know Kharzi and the background he came from and what formed his world view. This also had to give him an additional personal perspective on Afghanistan's history. Taking the time to speak of these things demonstrates real respect and an attempt to better understand Kharzi as a person. The story is great as a really shows a personal side to John Kerry that shows why he has the deep, enduring relationships he has. This was clearly not superficial nor is it likely the relationship disappear now that Kharzi did as the US wanted. Kerry built trust.

Piecing this together with other comments, I wonder if all of that led to common ground on citizenship and doing what is good for a country. The comments on the questionable US elections, likely was in response to concerns in some articles that conceding fraud would discredit Afghanistan. I wonder if it was to mitigate any resentment that the US and the international community were treating Afghanistan as if it were a "bad child".

Kerry's comments at the news conference positioned Kharzi as a public servant putting his country first. It might be that what Kerry provided was the words to allow a proud man and country to safe face here. Even since he returned, Kerry has brought the nuance that always should have been there back to how this was perceived. From Kerry's comments, even when back in the USA, he really did think he had won. With the ethnic background playing a role there, if he thought any of the ballots discarded were real, it translates to disenfranchising some of his people. (This does not mean that was no cheating - there clearly was, though just as Chicago justified it because of cheating downstate, there may have been some of that here.)

Those comments do suggest why Kerry was able to succeed where others had already failed. He strengthened an already existing personal bond. As to the article's focus, Clinton's decision to involve Kerry was really a no brainer and likely, and rightfully, a last resort. It was good that she did not let her own resentment of Kerry, which did show to some degree in the second hearing she had, keep her from doing what was best for the situation. She did this knowing that if it worked, Kerry would get the plaudits he did - and there was no downside (other than exhaustion) for Kerry if he didn't.

The reason I say it was a last resort, is that rightly all the normal administration people either could be ruled out or were tried and were failing - as were our allies. It is clear that Holbrooke and Biden both had such contentious pasts that they could not "reach" him at this sensitive moment. Clinton could have gone herself, but to go and fail would risk American prestige. She made the choice that her presence was needed in DC in the strategy meetings, rather than being connected by teleconference as they had when she was in Russia. This meant that she was limited to phone calls. I may be wrong, but it is hard to see how the needed interpersonal connection to Kharzi could have been made on phone calls by someone who did not have prior strong ties. This left Ambassador Eikenberry and his team, also praised by Obama, as the people handling it. In addition, every involved country had people trying and it was not working.

Against that backgroud, the administration knew Kerry was going to Afghanistan and they knew his connections and his abilities, even if for personal political reasons people around Clinton have rarely publicly praised them. For Kerry, there was no risk, because his mission was fact finding and there was no prior expectation that he was working to resolve this crisis. If it was Clinton, not Obama, who made the decision to pull in Kerry, she like Kharzi acted in our country's interest.

[wisteria]

3. Thank you for posting this here. n/t