Sen. Kerry's speech at CFR live on C-Span2 at 12:30 pm, Oct 26

[TayTay]

Nice to see a speech carried live. Apparently, it is already SRO!

C-Span Schedule for Monday, Oct 26th, 2009
12:30 pm EDT
Approx. 1 hr.
Council on Foreign Relations
LIVE U.S. Policy Toward Afghanistan
John Kerry

[karynnj]

1. Yay!

This is well deserved. Between having held 4 excellent hearings on Afghanistan and the fact that after the hours he spent speaking civilly with Karzai, he likely has as much insight as anyone on what to do.

This will likely anger the out now people. It will be interesting to see where he has landed after speaking to McChrystal, Karzai, our allies and others in Afghanistan and any insight he got from Pakistan. I do get what you said in other posts. Kerry is trying to find the policy that has the best chance to satisfy our needs in that area.

[YvonneCa]

2. I'll be watching! Thanks for the...

...info. :)

[wisteria]

3. Thanks for posting. I won't be around until later, but hopefully they will either replay it

or have it archived so that I can still watch it. It is good they are doing this.

[YvonneCa]

4. CNN just said Kerry will be LIVE at the bottom...

...of the hour. Are they going to carry his speech?? Hoping... :7

[karynnj]

5. This should be interesting

It will be great if CNN does cover it. I wouldn't be surprised because he is seen as one of the people who Obama has consulted.

Starting now with David Sanger (NYT - sp?) is introducing him now. Kerry will speak then answer questions.

Kerry is up

Kerry refers to Sanger's book that speaks of Obama starting with promise, but also with thorny problems left by Bush. Kerry then spoke of the reason for taking time to get the policy right - and says that it is the job of all Americans to question if the policy is right. Questions not answered in Vietnam.

He apeaks of how this conflict started differently than Vietnam. Says it was not a mistake to go in. Says the easiest way to get it wrong is to reduce question, politically, to more troops yes or no. Says the problem is the startegy. Kerry speaks of Cheney having said in 2003 that the Taliban was out of business perfectly. Spoke of officer saying we have fought a one year war 8 times. Spoke of having more than 3 cups of tea with Kharzi.

Need to refocus objectives to what is achievable. Yes, there are questions of what is needed to do this. The costs of failure are real. Most of AQ are in NW Pakistan - and they can organize the next attack from Yemen, ... or a chat room. Harder to plan attacks if you are boxed in and are on the run. Need to keep the Taliban from giving santuary. If the US and allies are seen as incapable it will help recruit terrorists. What happens in Afghanistan affects Pakistan, where we have enormous interests. Mentioned that Pakistan has conflict with India. We are committed 30:1 Afghanistan:Pakistan.

Success - ability to transfer power to Afghanistan that leaves an Afghanistan that is not controlled by Taliban or AQ. Not perfect democracy or economy - good enough governance. Most Afghanis despise Taliban - they need to be secure enough to reject them. Kerry spoke to Kharzai about improving governance and he things it is possible.

Says limited counterterrorism will cede half the country to Taliban and AQ - and to civil war. Also says that you can't get the intelligence without boots on ground. Kerry is against a full scale counterinsurgency that would take up to 400,000 - says you don't have to do that because non-Pastun areas are already hostile to the Taliban. Spoke of the concern that no matter how good our intentions to be misread and for us to be perceived as occupiers. Says McChrystal's plan reaches too far too fast.

Decisions on troops should nbe informed by:
- Are there enough Afghan troops? Increase them quickly. Kerry says they are lower than some have said. They need as much on the job training as possible

- Are their local leaders to partner with? - Need to have local leaders providing services on our side. Nee them to see that their lives improve as soon as they join us.

- Governance has to be there. Without the civilian side working, this can't work.

In addition to number of troops, it is what they do.

Need to know those conditions are met before more troops are sent. Military can not deploy more than one brigade (?) a month.

Kerry spoke of concern that the indecision on runoff could help Taliban. Kerry spoke of all the things he and Kharzi spoke of - (including the concern that Pastuns were being slighted.

Says the Afghan government needs significant reform, also has to expand government beyond Kabul. They need to work with the Tribal leaders. The Afghan government needs links and connections to tribal leaders. The narcotics trade is fueling the Taliban and corroding government. Need to encourage sustainable economics. Spoke of being told at the Shura that they need water. Donors have lacked coordination - this doesn't work.

In a counterinsurgency, the people are the center and you have to win them. Taliban took over in 1986 when their was complete chaos. Taliban are not like Viet Cong who were national. Only a relatively small number of irreconcilables, who can't be won over. If we can provide a sustainable "least" economic society it will help a lot.

Somethings have helped -
84% have healthcare
more kids in school
more roads

invest in Afghan led programs. Need to press allies to do more - and they have committed recently to do so. UN must do more to coordinate civilian efforts. (Said it is wrong that we are borrowing money from China to create stability in Afghanistan so they can mine copper there.

If we falter in Afghanistan, people in Pakistan may link to terrorists. Said good news is that Pakistan sees terrorists as an existential threat.

[YvonneCa]

6. He's ON CNN LIVE...

...YAaaay!

[beachmom]

9. Really? Wow. Did they show the whole speech?

[YvonneCa]

10. No (sadly) only about the first 10-15...

...minutes. :(

[Luftmensch067]

7. He is absolutely magnificent in this speech!

Crystal clear, massively informed, just brilliant! I'm so glad this is being extensively covered!!!

[karynnj]

11. He really is -

There is no one who has laid out the issues on this as he has here. He really is brilliant.

Sanger asks how they could not protect every hamlet - mentioned this was like what Bush did. Mentioned thatBush had about 20,000 and we now have near triple the number of troops then. We have learned about the cultures. Speaks of reform by Kharzi and appointment of Governors. Taliban grew because of the inadequacy of government. Can't move ahead of what we can do or we disappoint.

Sanger:
Three conditions in K/L/B - continuing to AQ Khan and nuclear and ISI links to terrorism. Those were not in the Senate bill, but in the House bill - the conference bill requires a report from US administration to Congress on the improvement. Want our money to support our values. Spoke of statement written before the bill was signed. Most Pakistani politicians have moved on. Says that there will be a huge number of DP from Wazilistan (?), if we help and it is clear it is us will help. Our image is based on drones.

WP: Can Kharzi do reform, esp as brother is corrupt. Asked about moral of troops. Kerry said that Kharzai brought up issue on brother - when Kerry returned he asked for the direct proof from our intelligence - what is smoking gun?

walking by the poppies because it is better if we do not have a substitution - other wise you are creating people against us because you are destroying their livelihood. Kerry is convinced that Kharzi understands the need to change.

On moral - Kerry said with good strategy in place and accomplishments showing it would increase moral.

[Luftmensch067]

12. Absolutely at the TOP of his game n/t

[YvonneCa]

13. Remember how the Senator used to tell...

...people they needed to 'shake things up'? I think this speech will start to do that. It was an EXCELLENT plan for a way forward in Afghanistan. IF there is coverage (unlike when he spoke on Iraq), this may stir the debate. His words will sound pretty controversial, IMHO, to people who haven't been listening as intently as we here do.

Thank you, Senator Kerry, for your leadership!

[beachmom]

8. Spencer Ackermann following on Twitter

http://twitter.com/attackerman

Also:

http://twitter.com/mikememoli

WH Real Clear Politics

[beachmom]

14. Spencer has a post up:

http://washingtonindependent.com/65185/kerry-on-afghanistan

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recently back from brokering Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s acquiescence to a runoff election, is giving a stemwinder address to the Council on Foreign Relations right now about future strategy in Afghanistan. It’s a forceful defense of the war, and he urges conditionalizing military strategy on the U.S. and Afghan capacity to provide good governance and development assistance. I’ll have much more as soon as the speech ends, but check this out — Kerry endorsed a “focused” counterinsurgency effort but had this critique of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s strategy review:

Go to link for quote

[YvonneCa]

15. "Frankly, OUR democracy ain't working so...

...well." He was discussing Karzai and democracy in other countries.:7

[fedupinBushcountry]

19. He is such an

honest broker, that is why to this day he will always be my President. :-) Great speech and Q&A, it should make everyone think before they jump into prolonging something that just won't work and make us continue to look like occupiers, he is so right.

[YvonneCa]

30. Mine, too, fedup. It makes me feel better just...

...to know that someone at his level of government, understands what worries ME about our government. It's not that I don't think our country is the BEST...I do. But we have to fix what isn't working or it may not be that way for my grandchildren (all four of them :)). The list is long:

the economy
foreign policy and our leadership role in the world
Katrina problems
education
the legislative oversight process
money in elections, and electoral processes at the federal level ;)

On and on...

[Luftmensch067]

16. One of the best things JK is doing here

Is humanizing Karzai. Whatever you think of Karzai, just speaking of leaders we're engaged with as complete human beings, with lives and histories rather than as names you can throw around and use for your own ends is a huge change in how we relate to the rest of the world.

[beachmom]

18. I thought it also interesting that he mentioned that not one intelligence

agency has evidence for many of the things Karzai's brother is accused of (like drug trafficking).

[karynnj]

24. That really is major

If people in the US or other Western countries are repeating this if there is no proof, or if it isn't even true, that is a problem. The idea that the brother of the President is possibly being smeared is a major problem. I hope someone in the media investigates this.

[fedupinBushcountry]

28. Like he said

he has asked and no one has given him any evidence of a smoking gun. Looks like JK has investigated it to a point, and know one has brought him any evidence.

[karynnj]

22. I really liked Kerry's defense there

It also links to what we thought of him back many years ago. The fact that he had the guts to return to a country where the Taliban killed his father really does make him a patriot. On Zakaria's GPS, Kharzai spoke of the government as a "toddler". The fact is that much has to be demanded of it, so in can work. It might be that no one else is as likely to be able to do it as Kharzai - the fact that he is a Pastun standing against the Taliban is important. While by all accounts there is massive corruption, it may be that Kharzi has been to some real degree smeared, or at least that may be his impression. That may be why Kerry, who has not done that, was the one who could reach him here.

[beachmom]

26. Well, let's not take it too far. Kerry said his brother was "not helpful".

And it is Karzai's fault that there is corruption. He is the President and has not managed the situation well. However, I have never been convinced that he himself is corrupt. More like he has been powerless to control the corruption. Kerry at least publicly seems confident that Karzai can turn it around. We shall see.

[karynnj]

39. I was meaning the defense of Kharzai - not his brother

(where he spoke of him as a patriot etc As everything rests on good governance, the only chance is if Kharzi can. In that situation, the only support Kerry can offer is to appear confident. The question is what can be done if he doesn't - it sounds, from Kerry's own words that counterinsurgency is then doomed.

[beachmom]

44. Ugh. Just read this about Karzai. Double ugh.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091109/jones/single

Given this background, there should have been no surprise when President Karzai first signed off in March on the Shiite Personal Status Law or, as it became known in the Western press, the Marital Rape Law. The bill had been percolating in the ultraconservative Ministry of Justice ever since the Iranian-backed Ayatollah Asif Mohseni submitted it in 2007. Then last February Karzai apparently saw the chance to swap passage of the SPSL for the votes of the Shiites--that is, the Hazara minority, 15-20 percent of the population. It was just one of many deals Karzai consolidated as he kept to the palace while rival presidential candidates stomped the countryside. The SPSL passed without alteration through the Parliamentary Judicial Committee, another little bunch of ultraconservative men. When it reached the floor of Parliament, it was too late to object. Some women members succeeded in getting the marriageable age for girls--age 9--revised to 16. Calling it victory, they settled for that. The Supreme Court reviewed the bill and pronounced it constitutionally correct on grounds the justices did not disclose.

The rights Afghan women stood to lose on paper and in real life were set forth in the SPSL. Parliamentarian Shinkai Karokhail alerted a reporter at the Guardian, and the law was denounced around the world for legalizing marital rape by authorizing a husband to withhold food from a wife who fails to provide sexual service at least once every four days. (The interval assumes the husband has four wives, a practice permitted by Islam and legalized by this legislation.) But that's not all the law does. It also denies or severely limits women's rights to inherit, divorce or have guardianship of their own children. It forbids women to marry without permission and legalizes forced marriage. It legalizes marriage to and rape of minors. It gives men control of all their female relatives. It denies women the right to leave home except for "legitimate purposes"--in effect giving men the power to deny women access to work, education, healthcare, voting and whatever they please. It generally treats women as property, and it considers rape of women or minors outside marriage as a property crime, requiring restitution to be made to the owner, usually the father or husband, rather than a crime against the victim. All these provisions are contained in twenty-six articles of the original bill that have been rendered into English and analyzed by Western legal experts. No doubt other regressive rules will be discovered if the 223 additional articles of the law ever appear in English.

More:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6098614.ece#

Women protesters against 'marital rape' law spat on and stoned in Kabul

April 16, 2009

A group of Afghan women who braved an enraged mob yesterday to protest against an “abhorrent” new Afghan law had to be rescued by police from a hail of stones and abuse.

The protest by about 200 women, unprecedented in recent Afghanistan history, was directed at the Shia Family Law passed last month by the Afghan parliament which appears to legalise marital rape and child marriage.

The rally, staged by mostly young women with their faces exposed, was a highly inflammatory act of defiance in a country as conservative as Afghanistan. It provoked a furious reaction from local men and a rapidly expanding mob threatened to swamp the demonstrators as they tried to approach the Afghan parliament.

“Go home if your mothers and fathers are Muslims,” one Shia cleric shouted at the protesters, who were pressed into an ever-tighter huddle as the crowd surrounded them. “These people will beat you if you stay.”

This is despicable. Somehow I missed this story:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/karzai-rape/

Today, the UK Independent reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has signed the new Shia Family Law, which women’s groups believe will essentially legalize rape.

...

Critics are charging that Karzai rushed the bill through parliament “in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.”

Update Jezebel has more, writing, "I guess somebody in the embassy forgot to read Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing testimony in which she promised to elevate the status of women's rights in foriegn policy."

[karynnj]

46. I had read this when it was posted before - this really shows that there are

things in Afghan culture which are appalling. This is a time when I wonder about the fact that we can not really have much impact in changing their society. It is only in comparison to the Taliban that this is "better".

[beachmom]

48. Actually, it was a Taliban era law. Sigh. nt

[karynnj]

56. I'm not surprised - thanks

It does make it hard to defend fighting for this government, though it is not clear we could get a better one.

[beachmom]

17. Checking the Google, articles coming out either focus on

superfluous stuff like his rebut to dick cheney or I think create a conflict with "anti-war" democrats while not focusing enough on the meat of his ideas.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-26-Kerry_N.htm

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/26/kerry-responds-cheney-criticism/

The usa today article is meant to set off left blogistan, while the wash. times one is to set off the right wingers. Meanwhile, talking seriously about the issue is not something these "journalists" think is important.

[karynnj]

23. How pathetic, no substance, but designed to get both the right and left attacking him

It sure is good that he has developed the ability to not be upset by these attacks. If nothing else, this is proof number 100000 that Kerry is not a panderer. (Why is that word not used for Michelle Bachman and Grayson, both who deserve it?)

I guess the good thing is that it should be heard and addressed by serious people around Obama.

[fedupinBushcountry]

27. Well

it's already posted on DU and the usual just read some quotes and jump crowd are on it. I posted the link to C-Span so they could watch it. Do you think they will? Hell no, they just want to rant. *sigh*

[YvonneCa]

34. As I said...

...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=160564&mesg_id=160583

:) No surprise.

[fedupinBushcountry]

20. Did you all hear the

one interruption by C-Span and something like "now we will take you to the media accuracy..."? I was ready to call C-Span if they switched to that.

[karynnj]

25. yep - and that is a RW group they give lots of time to

I saw part of one - where Inhofe and a former "science" adviser to Thatcher spoke of how the media was lying on global warming and not covering all the scientists who disagree.

I had the same reaction - and was very glad they realized that JK was more important than that.

[YvonneCa]

32. Same reaction here...

...How dare they... :7

[beachmom]

21. I liked the speech but I will tell you how this plays out:

Kerry is backing the war in Afghanistan, and will back more troops IF his requirements are met. He opposes Gen. McChrystal's current proposal, but would support a narrower approach (like what MH1 mentioned -- not the entire country but certain territories, especially Pashtun areas) that still amounts to a counterinsurgency strategy. He talked in detail about the three legs of counterinsurgency: security, development, and governance. He said the counterterroism strategy would not work, and could plunge the country into civil war. A popular article going around the internets is from Newsweek about "Chaosistan" http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/10/10/mcchrystal-mistakenly-reveals-secret-cia-report.aspx. Dumbass liberals are using this as some kind of rallying cry of conspiracy theory suspicion, when in reality it is about the very narrow (read: less troops) counterterrorism strategy supported by V.P. Biden.

Kerry threw out a line against Dick Cheney, but honestly, nobody can beat what George Will said on Sunday:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/25/george-will-to-cheney-you_n_333036.html

"A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction," Will said on ABC's "This Week.

Kerry is very powerful and highly influential to other Democrats who take his opinion very seriously. I think Pres. Obama will go with Kerry's ideas, and therefore, the Democratic Congress will not defy the President on Afghanistan, and remain largely "in line". This will mean Kerry will really own this war. Much more so than the Iraq War Resolution vote, this is major. I also think any member of this group should not get distracted by Kerry's speaking style or nice anecdotes he may have given in this speech. He is backing this war, and will probably back more troops, if his ideas are listened to.

I, of course, agree with him. But based on my conversations on DailyKos the other day, the Left will be going its separate way from John Kerry. The honeymoon with the netroots (if there was one) is over. I also think members here should express their disagreement with Sen. Kerry if that is how they feel. Kerry has made a grave decision here, and just because we support him, in general, does not mean we have to go along with him. This article just posted to the FP illustrates why I am endorsing Kerry's approach at this time. It is an excellent rebuttal to the notion that al Qaeda, because it has staged attacks from Europe, no longer needs a safe haven. (And I'm talking to you, Bill Maher). Um, wrong. In order to launch a massive attack on the U.S. (The Big One, if you will), they need a safe place to train and plan. Right now they don't have it, but if we leave Afghanistan, they could easily get it back.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/23/got_safe_haven#

Why Al Qaeda Wants a Safe Haven

Take it from someone who has spent the last half-decade studying terrorist plots: A homeless al Qaeda is the best guarantee against large-scale attacks.

As deliberations about the Obama administration's strategic direction in Afghanistan unfold, the White House is weighing whether al Qaeda, in fact, needs an Afghan safe haven -- an expanse of land under the protection of the Taliban -- to reconstitute its capability to attack the United States. Many noted scholars doubt it. In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass bluntly stated, "Al Qaeda does not require Afghan real estate to constitute a regional or global threat."

He's wrong. Although the group has been significantly weakened since late 2001, the only chance al Qaeda has of rebuilding its capability to conduct a large-scale terrorist operation against the United States is under the Taliban's umbrella of protection.

Objections like Haass's are rooted in the following arguments: that terrorists don't need physical space because they can plot online; that the London and Madrid bombings prove deadly attacks can be planned in restrictive, Western, urban locations under the noses of local security services; and that denying terrorists one safe haven will simply compel them to move to another lawless region.

I spent five years as a counterterrorism analyst for the Pentagon and rigorously studied plots from Madrid to London to 9/11. The above arguments may have merit in a piecemeal or abstract sense, but fall apart in the specific case of what we all dread: a large-scale, al Qaeda operation aimed at the United States.

Shorthand: taking a class in person is far more effective than on line.

Final note: what I heard from Sen. Kerry in tone over and over again was realism. What is doable? What is possible? I think it is important that if Pres. Obama goes ahead with a new counterinsurgency strategy, and it is not working in a year, that another re-evaluation will be needed asking the same questions. Many experts who I respect think it is hopeless in Afghanistan, and that we should leave or do a counterterrorism strategy only. They think nothing is doable or possible. With Obama so early in his presidency, I think it is too early to make that assessment. However, my support for this endeavor has a deadline (even if there isn't a formal one). Come next fall, and no progress, it's time for Plan B.

[Luftmensch067]

31. I think you are right

But if JK ever had a honeymoon with the netroots, he should ask for an annulment right now! :-)

He can try to get through to them and I'm glad he does, but there is no reason to believe that they will ever get their heads out of you know where when it comes to John Kerry. Same thing with the RW zombies. So, it appears to me, he just goes ahead and keeps speaking truth and commonsense to anyone who WILL listen. And thank goodness that includes the current Administration and a lot of people who count when it comes to truly making policy.

As for "owning" this war, I guess that's one way to look at it, but as we've seen in the past, JK doesn't define his own assessments as hard and fast, even if other may try to. He will continue to speak out about what he sees as the right path forward and it will no doubt change as circumstances change. Those who are determined not to understand that now will not change, nor will those who actually listen, as we do.

[YvonneCa]

33. You just articulated my major reason for...

...following Kerry closely on foreign policy during the past eight years. I SO disagreed with GWB and his people...and I always listened to the left (MoveOn...etc.). But I counted on Kerry to navigate the realistic path...because he IS knowledgeable, he DOES investigate, and he has the experience to create the correct 'way forward.'

[beachmom]

36. When it comes to ideas, I have no respect for the neocons OR the

cottage industry of the Anti-War Left. All they do is shout slogans and smear anyone who disagrees with them. Meanwhile, actually solving problems and thinking through foreign policy ideas is something they have no interest in doing.

[beachmom]

35. Well, there are members of the netroots community who do support John Kerry.

Obviously the Stars of the Netroots have never been on his side. But other commenters have rec'd my diaries, who if I wrote a diary today detailing Sen. Kerry's speech (in an honest way with full context, of course) would NOT rec it, because they would disagree. Most members of the left wing of the Dem party want to withdraw from Afghanistan, or at the least not send more troops. Some of them do like JK, and was counting on him being his old "anti-war self". They will be very disappointed. When Sen. Kerry started posting on dailykos back in January 2006, he gained a lot of supporters on the web. He continues to have support, especially with his global climate change bill. But on Afghanistan, a lot of people who like him will absolutely not go along with him on this. And the haters will "have a point" with them.

[YvonneCa]

38. I think you may be selling John Kerry...

...short here. For the haters...nothing will get through to them. But, for those who like JK, he may be THE ONE PERSON who CAN change their mind on Afghanistan. Will he change them all, or even a lot? Probably not...but he may get to some. I also think this speech will backstop Obama's new direction on Afghanistan...and Obama and Kerry TOGETHER (with media coverage of the dustup, the bully pulpit, and probably eventually buy-in from McCrystal) will start to change some minds.

If a new policy actually begins to bear fruit, JK will deserve the kudos for having the courage to lead.

[karynnj]

37. Your post is 100% on

I admit that you saw this coming in several threads.

Like you, I agree that this will mean that Kerry will own this war if Obama follows a path like this and the left will definately not side with him. I don't think these comments are outside what Kerry has said over the past weeks. Like you, I think that from everything he said (or was said in the hearings), I have to agree, that even though it will mean more troops than Biden's plan, it has a larger chance of succeeding.

I also suspect that Kerry, in pushing Kharzai on reform and the runoff, ends up with some obligation to support an effort if it is doable. Like you, I really hope that Kerry will continually review what is possible and be willing to make an equally strong case for changing if this plan, if Obama follows it or something close to it and it becomes clear that it is not working.

As to me, I am not sure what the best plan is - as all seemed to have so many bad downsides. Leaving completely, really does leave an unstable country, where it is likely the most coherent, organized group is the Taliban.

On counterterrorism, it does seem that simply shooting drones at targets, for which we have poorer intelligence over time really seems to add little ability to deny a safe haven, while greatly increasing hatred of us. I don't see how that could ever lead to a better situation, where we can leave. The question would be if it would create terrorists faster than we could kill them. In addition, I assume under this Taliban attacks on the villages could increase as the villages would not have protection. In soem ways, this almost seems a plan of frustration.

I do see his point against a full blown counterinsurgency. The governance is not there everywhere and we need partners. Kerry's answer to the first question that if we bite off too much we disappoint when we can't succeed made sense,

I think Kerry made a convincing case for his alternative, but I am cautious of your caution to us, Kerry always is convincing to me. There is no doubt that he is well meaning and this plan is what he believes is the best alternative. He also is brilliant and clearly has put enormous thought into this. It was interesting the number of times that echoes of things said in his hearings by others appeared. He is clearly brilliant in how he put this together. That does convince me that, if those are the goals and if it is seen that the fight is worth it, this is likely the best plan to get there.

But, it does seem Kerry moved one goal. He has long said that the goal was to fight AQ. Here, he moved to fighting both AQ and the Taliban. One thing he said was new to me - that the Taliban has fairly little support among the Afghanis. I do understand that they had little support in non-Pastun areas, but is their support really low in the Pastun areas? That shift also makes counterterrorism less the right approach. If only the foreign AQ was the target, it would seem that targeting them and eliminating them could work. With the Taliban added, they are Afghanis, with Afghani families and more will be recruited from the Afghani population.

If Kerry's assertion that the Taliban have relatively little popularity in Afghanistan is not true, my concern is that this broader objective may be far more difficult. It really is us taking sides in a civil war, which I am beginning to think was the old fashioned word for counterinsurgency. IMO, this would be justified only if it is clear that really are inseperably entwined with AQ.

I never saw Kerry as a male version of Joan Baez. In Tour of Duty, he and other officers objected to strategies that were getting men killed while meeting no goals. Even his call to leave was based on his conclusion that there was no way to win. As it seems that no one, even Feingold, is calling for leaving now, the options are some form of counter terrorism or counterinsurgency. I now see what you meant with Webb - he is more likely just for counterterrorism. I completely agree that Kerry will not be praised on the left for this.

But, a large part of the difference between them is that there is a far bigger civilian/political piece in counterinsurgency then in counterterrorism. So, while I am left trying to figure out if I like the mission creep from AQ to AQ and the Taliban, the idea that we have to do the re-construction and helping them build institutions is something I think makes sense. But, if you look at what Kerry was saying on Afghanistan on September 9, 2006 in his National Security speech, he has changed here - just updated it to match where we are politically. (In fact the right, misreading Kerry's comments that we need to review policy before committing more troops, as wanting to cut the effort, contrasted that to his 2006 comments - that they belatedly agreed on.)

[TayTay]

61. I partially agree, but within set parameters

Withdrawal was not on the table, getting a strategy was. I think we are closer to a strategy and a goal in Afghanistan. I don't think we are going to go all that much above the 68,000 we have now, maybe 10,000 more, which will be half the size of what we had in Iraq at it's height and 1/8th of what Kerry was told in committee was needed for a full-on counterinsurgency.

My take-away from the speech was the realism of it. This was remarkable for just how much Sen. Kerry did not want to play this game or commit to any all-in strategy. I did not see him as backing anything fully. I saw him as committing to something small and doable. The plan to have a country, rougly the size of California, have 78,000 troops there, is not a huge effort.

I am more intrigued by the backing of the use of drones, frankly. That is extremely interesting. Other nations desperately want us to sell them the drone technology. Kerry explicitly backed this type of warfare today, which is truly groundbreaking news.

[Inuca]

68. I don't have

time to write much and only had time to watch the beginning of Kerry's speech on the CFR's site (maybe I'll get a chance later on the CSPAn site, the CFR video looks horrid). I only wanted to say that once again I am beyond impressed at both the quality of your analysis and your writing. I also agree with your conclusion that in many ways this is "Kerry's war" now. Hoping for the best.

Also want to thank everybody for your comments, I am waddling my way through them slowly as I get a chance to spend some more time in front of the computer.

[ProSense]

29. Excerpts

posted here

Transcript of prepared remarks: PDF

[karynnj]

42. If you want to see hyprocrisy, look for the person

commenting on your thread. She blasted Kerry for saying it would be irresponsible to send troops before you know what the government is. (ie she was A-ok with Obama if he too McChrystal's advice.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8705716#8705757

[beachmom]

40. Excellent summary on MSNBC's First Read:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/26/2108583.aspx?ocid=twitter

Kerry's Middle Road

Back from his recent trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Sen. John Kerry said today Gen. Stanley McChrystal's plan for surging tens of thousands of U.S. troops into Afghanistan "reaches too far, too fast." But, he also warned against any large pullout of American forces.

Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry, the chairman of Senate Foreign Relations committee, argued that more U.S. troops would not produce results if Afghan security forces are not effective and the governing and development capabilities of the Afghan government are lacking.

"The bottom line is that deploying additional troops won't result in sustainable gains if the Afghan security, civilian and governance capacity isn't there,” Kerry said. “And right now, as our generals will tell you, in many places, too many places, it isn't.”

He continued, "We do not yet have the critical guarantees of governance and of development capacity, the other two legs of counterinsurgency. And I have serious concerns about the ability to produce effective Afghan forces to partner with at the rate that we need to so that we can ensure that when our troops make heroic sacrifices, the benefits to the Afghans are actually clear and sustainable."

Go to the link for the rest. Well done.

[YvonneCa]

41. Kerry coming up on CNN...

...with Wolf B.

Edited to add: JMHO, but I think the Afghanistan decision has been made. What do you all think?

[YvonneCa]

43. Great. Wolfie says he's going to ask JK...

...if Afghanistan is Viet Nam. :eyes:

[beachmom]

45. NYT: Kerry Calls for Limiting Expectations in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/world/asia/27kerry.html?hp

WASHINGTON — Calling for a broad, patient war strategy, John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Monday that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the American military commander in Afghanistan, was trying to do too much in a relatively short time.

Senator Kerry, who traveled recently to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said his conversations with General McChrystal covered the importance of a “smart counterinsurgency” approach.

“But I believe his current plan reaches too far, too fast,” Mr. Kerry said at a gathering here of the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent research organization.

While Mr. Kerry did not mention numbers for the troop strength he would like to see in Afghanistan, he seemed to differ, at least implicitly, with General McChrystal, who is believed to be seeking up to 40,000 additional American troops. There are about 68,000 United States troops there now.

I guess the NYT needs to eat crow, given their foolish headline from last week.

Also here, but really bad reaction:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4119852#

[beachmom]

47. Spencer Ackerman at the Wash. Ind. now has full article up:

http://washingtonindependent.com/65217/kerry-backs-counterinsurgency-strategy-in-afghanistan

Very meaty post. I'll just excerpt two paragraphs which illustrate Kerry's position and then a quote about the risks of it:

Bolstered by his credibility in delivering the biggest tangible diplomatic success for the Obama administration on Afghanistan to date, Kerry endorsed a counterinsurgency strategy in the Pashtun areas of “the southern and eastern theaters of Afghanistan,” and limited to “major population centers,” saying “we cannot and should not undertake a manpower intensive counterinsurgency operation on a national scale.” He praised McChrystal as “understand the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area,” but said McChrystal’s current plan “reaches too far, too fast.”

Mark Moyar, a scholar at the Marine Corps University who focuses on counterinsurgency, said narrowing U.S. focus on south and east Afghanistan “makes a certain amount of sense,” as the Taliban-centered insurgency is based in that region. But it runs the risk of allowing insurgents to disperse and set up shop unchallenged elsewhere in the country. “There is a danger, as there has been in a number of other counterinsurgencies, to focus on area, make it a high priority, but eventually figure it out and go somewhere else,” said Moyar, author of a new book about counterinsurgency, “A Question of Command.” “Already, starting to get stronger in the north and west” of Afghanistan.

[beachmom]

49. OMG, you guys. The disparity in headlines and emphasis in the press is astounding:

Wash. Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102602065.html

Kerry rejects troop increase in Afghanistan

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/kerry-mcchrystals-plan-ambitious/story?id=8920543#

Kerry: General's Plan in Afghanistan Too Ambitious

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., today said the strategy submitted to the White House by the top American commander in Afghanistan "reaches too far, too fast" and called for a more narrow, modest mission that he says will eventually enable the U.S. to draw down its military presence there.

This one concentrates on Karzai:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59P50020091026

Sen. Kerry calls Afghanistan's Karzai a "patriot"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John Kerry on Monday challenged the image of Afghan President Hamid Karzai as a corrupt, weak leader, saying he was a patriot who understood there must be changes among his ministers.

Kerry's defense of Karzai, in a speech on the war in Afghanistan, contrasted with recent comments by U.S. officials, who have expressed frustration at what they see as the Afghan leader's refusal to tackle corruption.

"The fact is that this man, I believe, is a patriot ... He has a commitment to this," said Kerry, who returned last week from Afghanistan where he helped convince Karzai to participate in a run-off election.

The Massachusetts Democratic who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it was essential to address the problem of corrupt officials "at every level of government" in Afghanistan.

This will please Karzai, but I think we need to keep our bad cop, Mr. Holbrooke on hand as well.

[YvonneCa]

50. They don't do nuance, AND they are LAZY...

...non-reporters. They don't want to take the time and/or effort required to actually listen to the whole policy or to understand it...which they'd have to do to get the headlines correct.

[beachmom]

51. No, other than a couple earlier in the day, all these articles

are interesting. The point is his speech was tight with ideas and nuances, so it meant everyone got something different out of it. I think Spencer Ackerman (and myself for that matter) noted he was backing the war. But Wash. Post felt he was rejecting a troop increase. The NYT and MSNBC noted he wanted something more "limiting" or "middle road". Some of the MSM guys have better connects with the government. Perhaps Obama IS going to go another way, and then of course, Kerry will have to make a choice.

[ProSense]

52. Exactly,

Kerry basically said make a careful assessment and base the strategy on reality, and then he detailed the nuances of exactly what that means.

Beautiful.

[YvonneCa]

57. They ARE all interesting, in a ...

...Rorschach(sp?) Test kind of way. Kerry made a lot of news in that speech and in the Q and A, though. You know the saying, "You can't see the forest for the trees"? These stories are all about the trees. I don't think I have yet read a report from a reporter who saw the forest. JMO.

As to Obama, I think he has already made his decision...and Kerry is laying the groundwork for it. Again, JMHO.

[wisteria]

58. What type of choice would he have to make. He has laid out his opinion.

I don't think he is under any obligation to go with
the strategy put forth by the administration if it differs from his. He might even have an idea in what direction the administration is leaning and that is why he put this out in front of that announcement. Personally, I would rather see Kerry exercise his Independence from the administration if he really does feel the direction they are taking on issues is the right one. I would hope he would do this if he does in fact disagree with them.

[beachmom]

59. Kerry is close w/ Obama, and basically his efforts were most pivotal

in getting Obama to be President than anyone else. If Obama went a different way, Kerry must break with him, but that would be painful and a solemn task.

However, based on the anonymously sourced ABC report I posted, I think Obama is going largely w/ Kerry's ideas.

[wisteria]

63. Granted, it would be difficult for Kerry to break from Obama, but that is what his position calls

for him to do. We need to maintain checks and balances. That was something that was sorely missing during the Bush years.

[beachmom]

53. NPR probably has the worst coverage:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/kerry_opposed_to_more_and_fewe.html?ft=1&f=103943429

Adam Server on Twitter:

AdamSerwer We're all Fox News now: "Liberal" NPR implicitly brings back flip-flop meme to mock Kerry calling for COIN.

NPR's conclusion at end of the article:

In short, Kerry wants what so many other American policymakers want: the most stable Afghanistan possible with the smallest additional investment of U.S. lives.

But his road map for getting to the desired end state is so conditioned on the Afghans doing their part as to raise as many questions as it answers. It seems unlikely that President Barack Obama would come away from a conversation with Kerry or from this speech with any more clarity about what to do than he had beforehand.

[karynnj]

55. What is bizarre is that any counterinsurgency plan depends on the Afghanis

pre McChrystal - as Kerry quoted good governance is needed. The fact is that they likely are also skeptical of counterterrorism.

[wisteria]

60. There is no one answer or strategy that is correct. There are and will continue to be many

"ifs". It seems some people are disappointed that he hasn't called for a complete withdraw which I think no one who understand this situation would want to see happen right now. I don't see this a two sided at all.

[beachmom]

54. Huff Po has 2 min. video of Kerry giving it to Dick Cheney:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/kerry-rebuts-cheney-your_n_334184.html

[fedupinBushcountry]

64. I posted that

in DU videos earlier.

[beachmom]

62. Our old pal from Time, Joe Klein, was impressed:

Kerry Nails It

Posted by Joe Klein Monday, October 26, 2009 at 8:30 pm

John Kerry gave a good, detailed speech about Afghanistan policy today. His sense that McChrystal's 40,000 request is too much, too soon is especially noteworthy. I hate to make predictions, but just this once: I still think Obama will approve 20-25,000 troops--two brigades to secure Kandahar city and environs, plus three to train the Afghan security forces (although I'm more skeptical than the U.S. Military about our ability to create an Afghan army of 250,000 or more, plus hundreds of thousands of non-corrupt police officers).



Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/26/kerry-nails-it/#ixzz0V5wS2ZDO

[beachmom]

65. And some more links to sift through on Memeorandum:

http://www.memeorandum.com/091026/p84#a091026p84

Two of our old friends are on that list. Good for them.

[karynnj]

66. Nice to see them

I am actually surprised that there is so little on the left blogosphere, though it is early. There was nothing I could find on Daily Kos and surprisingly Blue Mass seems to have forgotten they have Senators, now that they have 2. Not a peep on him going to Afghanistan or this speech.

It is astonishing that many articles push the comments to be more anti war or more hawkish than it was.

I wonder if there is kind of exhaustion with thinking about war.

[beachmom]

67. Well, I am using Twitter now so I can follow writers who are interested

in foreign policy plus news agencies. So now I really don't care that the "netroots" is not covering policy in Afghanistan. Most of them don't have the expertise anyway. When it is mentioned it is against the war. No in depth discussion of COIN vs. counterterrorism, etc., etc.

Edit: to be clear, I am not "tweeting". Just "listening" in.