Obama to announce new Afghan strategy, ask for more troops between 11/7 - 11/20

[beachmom]

Pretty sketchy, but read the tea leaves. I think he is going in Kerry's direction with a sprinkle of Biden thrown in. New strategy. More troops, but not as much as McChrystal requested because the strategy will be different from McChrystal's:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/president-obama-likely-to-announce-afghan-decision-between-nov-7-and-11-will-likely-seek-more-troops-but-not-40000.html#

Sources tell ABC News that as of now President Obama will likely announce his decision about a new strategy in Afghanistan at some point between the Afghan run-off election, November 7, and the president’s departure for Tokyo, Japan, on Wednesday, November 11.

...

Sources emphasize that no decision has yet been made, but as of now it looks as though the president is leaning towards sending more troops to Afghanistan, though not as many as Gen. Stanley McChrystal requested, 40,000.

This isn’t a matter of the president looking to send fewer troops, they say, but more of a consideration of a range of options as alternatives to McChrystal’s strategy, options that do not require as many troops.

The strategy will be a mixture of counterinsurgency – which would include some elements of nation-building and partnering with the Afghan government -- and counterterrorism, which is more focused on defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies.

[wisteria]

1. Interesting. But, we will have to wait and see. n/t

[YvonneCa]

2. Yep. The decision has been made. Those...

...who support President Obama are laying the groundwork.JMHO.;)

[YvonneCa]

3. Dup. Self-Deleted. n/t

[TayTay]

4. I think Obama might okay about 10,000 more troops

Someone said today that there is something of a misdirect going on in the whole discussion of Afghanistan. I think there was a lot in Sen. Kerry's speech today and the whole idea of adding or detracting troops was, in many ways, the least interesting part of what he said. I think the defense of Karzai was very important and fascinating to hear. (All-in on diplomacy, despite not quite believing the body language that said JK trusted Karzai.) The brief discussion on Pakistan and the inside-outside discussion on the use of drone technology was riveting. There is precious little discussion of this, despite a full-court press by the Pentagon to push this technology and rethinking of some fundamentals of how we go to war. (Obviously, there will be more on this. Drone technology is but a small part of a revolution in the technology of weapons and the technology of disrupting the enemy in a host of ways.)

I thought the good Senator laid out a very rational, if necessarily downbeat, assessment of Afghanistan and what can be done. 10,000 troops will not deliver the country or solve a lot of problems there and maybe that is because the US cannot solve those problems. We need to see good faith on the part of our allies, look for partners to work with who have a solid reason to want to partner with the US and make small, realistic goals. We can't do a lot in Afghanistan. We shouldn't make grandiouse plans because we can't accomplish them. I think that is very realistic. I thought the putting the focus on small, doable things is the right thing to do. Too bad this will be about the 10,000 troops because, again, that is almost a false item to focus on.

[beachmom]

5. Just came across this article on an EU report released today about Afghanistan:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dede9b8c-c259-11de-be3a-00144feab49a.html

They are supposed to step up and help:

The document, drafted by the bloc’s foreign policy specialists, sets the stage for the announcement on Tuesday of a reinvigorated civilian European effort in Afghanistan, in the form of extra financial resources and a new commitment to fighting corruption and strengthening the state administration. EU civilian aid for Afghanistan amounts to almost €1bn ($1.5bn, £912m) a year.

Carl Bildt, the foreign minister of Sweden, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, told the Financial Times: “The new strategy recognises the centrality of the political task in Afghanistan. If we don’t put in place some sort of functioning state in Afghanistan, some system of governance, then all our other efforts will fail. There is a new recognition of that.”

The EU report complements a message delivered last week by Nato defence ministers, who broadly endorsed a new US-designed counter-insurgency strategy for Afghanistan in an effort to regain the initiative in the eight-year-old war. European countries have deployed about 35,000 soldiers under Nato auspices in Afghanistan, about half the size of the 65,000-strong US contingent. But some EU countries keep their troops away from the most dangerous areas.

The EU report says the 27-nation bloc will attach particular importance to improving the Afghan electoral system after last August’s presidential elections were marred by fraud and vote-stealing. The report says: “In the absence of good governance, access to basic services, adequate justice and rule of law, the combined international and Afghan security efforts will not produce the necessary political stability needed for a secure and prosperous development.

And then there is this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/world/27germany.html?hpw

For Germans, the realization that their soldiers are now engaged in ground offensives in an open-ended and escalating war requires a fundamental reconsideration of their principles.

After World War II, German society rejected using military power for anything other than self-defense, and pacifism has been a rallying cry for generations, blocking allied requests for any military support beyond humanitarian assistance.

...

Driven by necessity, some of the 4,250 German soldiers here, the third-largest number of troops in the NATO contingent, have already come a long way. Last Tuesday, they handed out blankets, volleyballs and flashlights as a goodwill gesture to residents of the village of Yanghareq, about 22 miles northwest of Kunduz. Barely an hour later, insurgents with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades ambushed other members of the same company.

The Germans fought back, killing one of the attackers, before the dust and disorder made it impossible to tell fleeing Taliban from civilians.

The article is gripping, and basically, culturally it is a big deal. So the NATO situation is complicated to say the least.

Also interesting: al Qaeda and the Taliban are well aware of Germany's views on war and their rules of engagement. That is why they have targeted the Germans.

[beachmom]

6. FP The Cable has a little bit more insight:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/26/white_house_nearing_decision_on_afghanistan_kerry_says_general_mcchrystal_plan_reac

As for whether Sen. John Kerry is taking over Afghanistan policy, according to the White House, he's just helping out. After months of the administration delivering tough messages to Kabul through envoys such as Richard Holbrooke and Joe Biden, a fresh voice isn't such a bad thing, the narrative goes.

"It's a good cop, bad cop routine," one administration official said, acknowledging the strained personal relationships some other Obama officials have with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai following the marred presidential elections from August and the subsequent dispute over how to deal with the massive vote fraud there.

Regardless, after personally mediating a constructive way forward by working personally with Karzai last week, Kerry's views on Afghanistan, which haven't always been in line with the administration's, are now getting much more attention.

...

And today at the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry got out ahead of the administration's ongoing strategy review, arguing clearly for a limited counterinsurgency strategy focusing on population centers and resourced below the levels that Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal is calling for.

"We cannot and we should not undertake a manpower-intensive counterinsurgency operation on a national scale in Afghanistan," said Kerry, D-MA, sounding a lot like his Senate cohort Carl Levin, D-MI, who has also advocated for a strategy centered around building up Afghan forces, not adding U.S. combat soldiers.

[karynnj]

7. LA Times - JK's speech: Foreshadowing Obama's decision

This is a good thoughtful argument, though I don't really like the up front comments suggesting Obama's decision and its timing could be based on US politics. But, otherwise it is thoughtful and good.

Perhaps a long and thoughtful Washington speech Monday by Sen. John Kerry gives some indication of the direction of White House thinking. Obama and the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, just back from his own tour of the troubled area, have talked at length in recent days. And Kerry's argument for a more limited approach than more troops would provide Obama political cover.

The Kerry speech to the Council on Foreign Relations has the predictable Democratic Cheney-bashing and we-inherited-this-mess-and-now-it's-up-to-us-to-make-the-best-of-a-really-bad-situation lines. He quotes one soldier as saying the war in Afghanistan was so poorly run it hasn't been eight years long; it's been one-year wars fought eight times.

But if Obama's thinking parallels the chairman's, McChrystal can whistle Dixie several times before he'll get 40,000 additional troops. Maybe more like 10,000 to 15,000 to fight a targeted (limited) counter-insurgency/counter terrorism strategy. In short, Kerry's pitch is, less is more.

Gone, as The Ticket reported three weeks ago, would be the broad defeat of the Taliban, annihilation of Al Qaeda and construction of a viable democracy plan of the past. Said Kerry:

Achieving our goals does not require us to build a flawless democracy, defeat the Taliban in every corner of the country, or create a modern economy—what we’re talking about is “good-enough” governance, basic sustainable economic development and Afghan security forces capable enough that we can draw down our forces.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/10/john-kerry-barack-obama-afghanistan-war-speech-text.html

[TayTay]

8. BTW, what Sen. Kerry said is pretty much what we predicted he would say

and that he would go for a hybrid solution with COIN and CT measures mixed in, he would strongly back continued diplomatic efforts with an eye to including more help from our NATO allies and from non-NATO countries with stakes in what happens in that region (China, Russia, Iran.) The Senator wanted an articulated strategy for what happens next in Afghanistan, not just a list of new troop additions and where tactics would be applied. (Apply these tactics to what end? What is the end point here? What is victory? Well, we know more about what JK considers "victory" in Afghanistan.)

Sen. Kerry strongly backed Karzai, as he had to, given what had happened last week and the fact that we want a "good enough" election next week in Afghanistan.

JK wants to build up Afghan forces. The country has to show it wants to move forward and a build up of it's own committed forces would do that. This course has a long, long way to go.

Clear, Hold, Build.... and Transfer. Like that last addition. It's their country. We build it, they sustain it.

Drone strikes annoy the hell out of the civilians and are popular with the leaders behind the scenes because of their effectiveness.

[karynnj]

9. It really is pretty much what was predicted here

However, at least for me, there were many little connections firmly explained that I hadn't seen before.

I agree that Kerry had to strongly defend Kharzai. We need Kharzai to listen to his better angels and to move towards reform. I would assume that Kerry showed similar respect for what Kharzai had done in returning to Afghanistan when he spoke to him in Afghanistan. If he did not say that it the US, he would look, to Kharzai, as if he said it just to gain his trust. Just looking at the things Kerry praised, it seemed that he 100% meant all the things he said. Other less positive things were obviously left unsaid there.

[YvonneCa]

12. Yes. Exactly. n/t

[wisteria]

15. I didn't care for the political comments either. And, I thought they cheapened the article. n/t

[TayTay]

10. Very sobering article in the WaPo from a FS officer who resigned

This is a http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394_4.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009102603447">downbeat article with little good to say about what is going on in Afghanistan. I commend it to your attention because of what the former Marine and Foreign Service officer is saying about rural Afghanistan and the growth of the Taliban there. I think this type of thinking played into why Sen. Kerry said what he said yesterday. (I hear echoes of someone else in Mr. Hoh.)

U.S. official resigns over Afghan war

Naseri told him that at least 190 local insurgent groups were fighting in the largely rural province, Hoh said. "It was probably exaggerated," he said, "but the truth is that the majority" are residents with "loyalties to their families, villages, valleys and to their financial supporters."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf">PDF: Letter of Resignation

Hoh's doubts increased with Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election, marked by low turnout and widespread fraud. He concluded, he said in his resignation letter, that the war "has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional. It is this latter group that composes and supports the Pashtun insurgency."

With "multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups," he wrote, the insurgency "is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and Nato presence in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified."

American families, he said at the end of the letter, "must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, love vanished, and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can be made any more."

[beachmom]

11. Yes, I read that sober article last night and immediately thought of Kerry.

He almost signed on to work for Holbrooke, but changed his mind a week later because it felt wrong, even if it was bad for his career. He clearly is a "patriot", and although this may make the Obama Administration look "bad", I am glad Mr. Hoh has spoken out.

[karynnj]

13. Same here - He likely "had" to speak out in much the same way Kerry did in 1971

knowing it could hurt or even prevent him from having a political career. (I hope Kerry spoke to him, if only to get his insight.)

[YvonneCa]

17. It could be 'spun' to make the Obama...

...Administration look bad, but I think it actually reinforces the case Senator Kerry is making for a different strategy in Afghanistan. And...if I were a betting person...I'd bet this is the direction Obama wants for Afghanistan.

[YvonneCa]

14. This dynamic in Afghanistan reinforces to me why...

conflict resolution strategies are so important, both in Afghanistan AND the US. It also supports JK's case for stressing unity over polarization in the politics of this country. I am glad uniting our country remains high on the agenda of both Senator Kerry AND President Obama.

[wisteria]

16. I think the guy is an opportunist. He was OK with the Iraq War as someone else pointed out

in another forum. And, I predicted this would be spun by the RW and it already has. I bet one of his first appearances will be on Fox News. This man is entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't have to be big news. And, as for the Kerry comparisons, I strongly disagree his deeds were anywhere remotely comparable to Kerry's.

[beachmom]

18. Only time will tell, but I believe Sen. Kerry ran for Congress in '70 and '72

and was spoken of with similar derision as not being sincere but merely protesting the war to advance a political career.

Again, only time will tell. You may be right. OR maybe his first appearance with be on Rachel Maddow.

[wisteria]

19. When Kerry spoke out we were well into a war that was wrong and had nothing to do with our security.

I do recall the accusations about Senator Kerry that still exist today, but he was speaking out against a Republican administration that was continuing a war because they did not want to admit to a mistake. Are you suggesting that Obama is continuing this war and Kerry still sees some hope, because they do not want to admit it is a mistake?
It has already been suggested that this guy is a plant for the antiwar movement because of the timing of his resignation and the PR surrounding it. It is being said that he is being made a poster boy to push Obama to get out of Afghanistan. So, if his first appearance is on Maddow, that will just add to this suggestion. Frankly, he has had his say, it appears in print and now has become a cable story. I am sure if Kerry sees merit in Hou's concerns he will call him to testify before his committee. There is no need for him to make the cable rounds.

[beachmom]

20. Um, there are many good people who have done their homework

who think Kerry & Obama are wrong, and that we should get out. Andrew Bacevich is one of them. I believe he appeared before the SFRC earlier this year. As to the anti-war movement, absolutely they have grabbed onto him:

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

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/27/797512/-Afghan-Run-Off-Election-the-Kiss-of-Death-

But the Right has not. Blackfive was respectful but said they disagreed.

[wisteria]

22. Limbaugh was spinning away today. So I would assume Hannity will have something tonight.

They are using it as an example of Obama's incompetence and people not trusting his judgment.

Didn't I mention earlier that Hou is entitled to his opinion? I do not dispute that. But what does he really expect to gain at this point since he has made his choices and his opinions have been made public? Obviously, he is looking for attention.

There are experts everywhere. I happen to trust Senator Kerry on this one. The armchair anti-warriors and those who are to quick to rush in with any number of troops offer both ends of extremes.

[beachmom]

24. Well, the equivalent would have been during the Bush years,

that someone like this guy quit while serving in Iraq because he felt Bush should triple the amount of troops and possibly invade Syria. Now, would his initial resignation be covered by Air America? Of course. But if they had him on, and he advocated escalating the war and invading Syria, he would lose his audience.

NOW, if the Right decides it is the party that wants to withdraw from Afghanistan, then all bets are off. Somehow, I don't see them going that way.

And yes, a hypocrite like Rush can twist it to serve his purposes, but eventually it will come out that the guys is for WITHDRAWAL.

[wisteria]

25. Oh, no doubt we took advantage of those who spoke out against Iraq

during the Bush years. But,for me,I alway view all these people warily and I don't think they really are as effective at changing public opinion as some people believe they are.

The story is a new one, lets see what comes out about this guy in a day or two. I am sure at this point, with the anti-war groups latching on to him and cable picking the story up, that we will be hearing more.

[karynnj]

32. I really admired Jon Soltz of Vote Vets

I think these people earned their right to speak of what they saw. The fact is that it is important for the Presidential team to hear what he is saying. They need to insure, to the best of their ability, that the soldiers have tasks that are worth the risk incurred in doing them and that the soldiers see the value to the US or Afghanistan in what they are doing.

Remember Kerry's haunting question, which appeared in other forms in his journal, where at one point he resigned himself to knowing that he could die and it would be for nothing and that he hoped that his friend, Pershing had not felt that before he died. Something I didn't pick up, was that in emphasizing that it was for a "big nothing", he was implying that he willingly accepted that he could die for his country.

The echo I see is that this guy did not see the value in what they were doing. In the hearing Kerry had with the Afghan vets, the difference between most of them and the young Kerry was that they were for the most part proud of things they did and thought they helped. (There was one who was anti-war)

[karynnj]

29. They have been attacking Obama's competence since before he was elected

This man has the right to state his opinion. After all, all of us sitting comfortably at home do. He does carry more weight for reasons similar to Kerry's in 1971. He was in Afghanistan. The fact that he was up for that type of foreign service position likely means that he had shown himself to be an intelligent, capable man.

This really is a disagreement on what our goals and policies are. The fact is even Senator Kerry agrees that the policy needs revisiting and he has spoken of the need to identify what our goal is. Now, it is possible that someone in the field could not see that there was an overarching plan in what everyone was asked to do or it could be that like some of things spoken of by the vets at the Afghan hearing, where they took pride in what they did and what they accomplished, just to see it fall apart when they moved elsewhere.

Senator Kerry spoke even this week of needing a policy that made sense to the soldiers asked to risk their lives. Now, he would not have been saying that and defending the reassessment of the plans if what we have been doing was fully successful.

So, why the very different positions. Kerry is in a position where he can influence policy. He also, in spite of everything, is an optimist. Knowing that just leaving is a disaster, he has said what he thought was doable. It is also something where in a reasonably short time, you would know if you were winning Afghan leaders and if those areas were improving. (I'm sure he is aware that if Obama chooses this path and it doesn't work, the right wil assume the 40,000 would have fixed everything.

I like your "armchair anti-warrior".

[wisteria]

35. True, but this gave them something with some teeth in it.

But,as you said, once they find out he is anti-war, they will drop him like a hot potato.

[karynnj]

21. Well, in the 1970s, other anti-war people questioned Kerry's anti-war credentials

because he served at all.

I don't see him as an opportunist, because where is the opportunity. I also bristle every time the right suggests Kerry spoke out to build a political career. This case is more obvious, this clearly hurts his career. As to how he could have served in Iraq with no problems, then had problems now - this is really the same path Kerry took (more quickly) over his time in the Navy.

At this point, Kerry does not see Afghanistan as hopeless, but he does, and he is not alone. I wonder how a government in place for about 7 years can change its reputation fast enough, even if there change was massive and done immediately. It takes time to build trust. Do we have enough time? That is what all the COIN plans are banking on.

[wisteria]

23. Where is the opportunity? It is as a leader or leading spokesperson for one anti- war movement or

another. There are book opportunities and much money to be made on the speech circuit.
As for this man's Iraq experience I see no comparison with Kerry's time in Vietnam at all. The Iraq War was clearly a mistake from the beginning. We were not fighting for our security and we entered it preemptively.
Pardon me if I seem a bit taken aback that Mr. Hou had no problems with serving in Iraq and never had anything at all to say about that war, but he is involved in this one for five months and he knows everything about it.

[beachmom]

26. Not sure it is wise to condemn this young man before we have all the facts.

Good God look where he served:

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/where-rural-too-urban.html

When passing through Zabul Province this past summer, I got a brief from a smart U.S. Army officer with whom I had served in the 10th Mountain Division. Over the course of the briefing, he told the group I was with that "rural" is too urban a description for Zabul. What he meant was that the province was almost Biblical in terms of its development. The people of Zabul are isolated, remote, and enjoy no known natural resources. The literacy rate is around 11% -- 1% for women. It's all subsistence agriculture, and making matters worse is the fact that the U.S./NATO mission in the province is underesourced and thus dedicated almost entirely toward keeping Route 1 open. (The population is spread out over the province, too, making population-centric counterinsurgency difficult if not impossible.) All of this is worth keeping in mind when you read the resignation letter of the senior U.S. civilian official in Zabul Province (.pdf). These are the words of a man beaten down by the realities of the mission. I'm a pretty optimistic, cheerful guy, but even I would have a tough, tough time pulling a year's duty in Zabul. I salute those who do ...

And from Spencer Ackerman at the Wash. Ind. who took the time to cover Kerry's speech yesterday:

http://washingtonindependent.com/65271/the-first-afghanistan-resignation

The concern about the U.S. presence fueling the insurgency — not for what the U.S. does, but merely for the fact of its existence — was raised by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in January, but it has not yet seemed to penetrate most discourse about the war. Gates himself backed away from the critique in September, saying that Gen. Stanley McChrystal convinced him that the U.S. military could mitigate the danger by actively providing for the Afghan people’s well-being. And indeed, McChrystal has tacitly paid respect to the critique, saying in his much-derided London address that jobs programs could do much to deprive the Taliban of foot soldiers who fight because their lack of economic alternatives accelerate their antipathy to the U.S. presence. That approach won the support yesterday of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in his uneasy embrace of a modified version of McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy. But if Hoh is right, then it’s simply too late for that strategy, as the mere presence of the U.S. military will have reached the “tipping point” that Gates warned about in January.

[wisteria]

34. It is just a right as everyone else jumping on the Hou bandwagon.

I see no difference. You support him with little facts available. I don't, based on the way this has all been playing out. I could be wrong or you could be wrong. We will have to wait and see.

[beachmom]

37. I have seen no evidence that he hasn't served his country admirably.

The reason he is in the news is because he was well thought of by his colleagues and the Obama Administration, yet has lost complete faith in the mission in Afghanistan -- enough to resign. I simply think we should listen to what he has to say, nothing more nothing less. And apparently, Biden does, too, which is why he is having his guy meet with Hoh. PLUS, according to Prosense's article, he may very well be invited to appear before the SFRC.

I do think your notes of caution are fine. But I am not part of the Anti-War Movement, and I don't jump on bandwagons.

[TayTay]

39. I neither support nor don't support him

I found him a figure of interest in the news. He has a point of view that is of interest because it weighs on the current situation in Afghanistan. By his own admission, this is also a man with a history, a somewhat painful history, from his past service.

I found him a credible person with some standing that means I will listen to what he says. As to what import his story has on me, that still remains to be seen. I like to listen to a lot of voices, left, right and center and try and get a rounded view of what is going on.

This man's point of view is no more a "god's eye view" than anyone elses. But, he seems to have a story that is of interest, barring some news that would make him out to be a something else.

Nothing more, nothing less. There are a lot of voices out there. I try to listen to as many as I can.

[karynnj]

30. Five months? How may RW smears point out JK was in Vietnam for four months?

I agree with Beachmom. You may end up right on him, but only time will tell.

It may well be, if the Afghans can't have some good enough governance and it becomes clear that they can retain land we won, it will be time to rethink it. It is hard to think of any alternative though. It may really be a place with no only no good solution, it may be remotely acceptable solution.

[wisteria]

33. It was a lie with Kerry. No lie,with this man has been at this job for five months.

And, I don't like the JK comparisons. This guy is no JK.

[beachmom]

38. It wasn't a lie. John Kerry served in the brown waters for 4 months.

He served another tour of duty on the coast, but that was easier going. It was the 4 months period where he was in heavy combat; where Coastal Division 11 had a 70% casualty rate; and where in the Mekong Delta, the casualty rate was closer to 90%. It was awful, but it wasn't a year. A member of his crew said there was a day when they were attack THREE TIMES. It is THAT experience plus losing good friends for what he judged as a "goddamned waste" is why he turned against the war.

This guy in Afghanistan was civilian, so not the same. He was in his region for five months. Based on his letter, I would say he is not as eloquent as Kerry, but I don't see why you are so offended with the comparison. And really, the idea is that if you are in the service you still have a right to speak out.

[karynnj]

40. I'm not saying he is JK, JK is pretty unique

The fact though is that Kerry was in Vietnam for only 4 or 5 months - he was in the Navy for almost 4 years. In that way is is similar to you saying he was only in Afghanistan 5 months. The difference is you are not smearing him - while the Republicans wanted to think Kerry was in the service only 4 months.

[beachmom]

27. I just finished reading the letter. Pretty powerful stuff.

Everyone should read the actual letter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?hpid=topnews

Says the West Wing Report on Twitter:

The letter making waves in the West Wing and on Capitol Hill. Gibbs: not sure the President has seen it yet.

And Newsweek reports the following:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/27/afghanistan-foreign-service-officer-s-resignation-should-serve-as-a-warning.aspx

Tony Blinken, who is Joe Biden's foreign-policy adviser, is meeting this week with Hoh.

[ProSense]

28. Interesting.

Holbrooke tolT the Post that he shares some of Hoh’s analysis, if not his conclusions. According to the paper, Hoh will meet with Tony Blinken, Vice President Biden’s national security adviser, later this week. And don’t be surprised if Kerry calls him to testify at some point, either.

link

It would be interesting if Kerry did call Hoh to testify. While I believe that the U.S. needs to finish the mission in Afghanistan, there has to be a rational strategy for increasing the number of troops.

After watching Kerry's PBS interview, I could really see any number of scenarios playing out: more troops, redefine the strategy and refocus the troops that are already there, or shift the strategy and reduce the number of troops there. It all depends on the assessment, the mission and what is possible.

[beachmom]

31. Good catch. Thanks! I kind of thought Kerry would take an

interest in this person.

[beachmom]

36. According to this NYT article, the Obama Admin. is doing almost precisely what Kerry said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28policy.html?_r=2&hp

U.S. to Protect Populous Afghan Areas, Officials Say

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s advisers are coalescing around a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability.

...

At the heart of this strategy is the conclusion that the United States cannot completely eradicate the insurgency in a nation where the Taliban is an indigenous force — nor does it need to in order to protect American national security. Instead, the focus would be on preventing Al Qaeda from returning in force while containing and weakening the Taliban long enough to build Afghan security forces that would eventually take over the mission.

In effect, the approach blends ideas advanced by General McChrystal and by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., seen as opposite poles in the internal debate.

...

Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has been working closely with the administration on Afghanistan, signaled the current thinking in a speech on Monday: “We don’t have to control every hamlet and village, particularly when non-Pashtun sections of the country are already hostile to the Taliban.”

[karynnj]

41. I wonder how the Kharzai brother allegations will be dealt with

[YvonneCa]

42. Yep. n/t

[beachmom]

43. Hoh's first TV appearance is not Fox News OR MSNBC, but PBS The News Hour

http://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/5264048641

Matthew Hoh to discuss his resignation and concerns re: #Afghanistan policy - tonight on @NewsHour on PBS (via @AnneBell)