oped on JK's Afghanistan speech

[MBS]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/04/in_afghanistan_kerry_keeps_us_goals_modest/
by Graham Allison,, expert on nuclear terrorism and director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School. I 've just posted excerpts here. . .worth reading the whole thing.

In Afghanistan, Kerry keeps US goals modest
Reduced to a single bottom line, Obama must decide whether to accept the recommendation of his chosen military commander in the field to Americanize this war. McChrystal’s call for more troops would expand US forces in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 in order to execute what he terms a “classic counterinsurgency campaign.’’

Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, delivered a major speech last week summarizing his own analysis of the issue and offering advice about the president’s choices. The judgments are nuanced, but no more so than the realities.

On the bottom line question - yes or no on McChrystal’s request - Kerry says no. . . .
Kerry’s analysis begins with the most important consideration: US national interests. What should Americans care about here? What matters more than other things that matter? Kerry says: Pakistan - not Afghanistan. His focal question about Afghanistan is how developments there impact Pakistan. Over the past months he has led efforts to spotlight the anomaly that allocates 30 times more American time and resources to Afghanistan when our much larger interests lie in Pakistan. Thanks to his efforts with Senator Richard Lugar, the United States has committed $7½ billion over five years to help stabilize this nuclear-armed nation at risk of becoming the “epicenter of extremism in the world.’’

Second, what are America’s vital interests in Afghanistan? Kerry answers that it is to “prevent the Taliban - with their long-standing ties to Al Qaeda - from once again providing terrorists with an unfettered Afghan safe haven.’’ Period. . . .
Third, he defines success as “the ability to empower and transfer responsibility to Afghans as rapidly as possible and achieve a sufficient level of stability to ensure that we can leave behind an Afghanistan that is not controlled by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.’’ He does not say an Afghanistan in which some Taliban are not ruling in some areas.

Fourth, he rejects “all-in’’ counterinsurgency. In its place he recommends “smart counterinsurgency,’’ . . .

Kerry’ advances the argument by distinguishing between the vivid and the vital, lowering ambitions to “what is achievable, measured against the legitimate interests of the United States’’ and outlining a strategy to that end. It is a speech that the president should, and no doubt will, examine closely.

[blm]

1. This is the most accurate read of that speech I've seen in the media.

You should share it with GD. Many DUers have allowed media and bloggers to spin and confuse them.