Sen. Kerry's response to the President's speech on Afghanistan

[TayTay]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) released the following statement this evening following President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan:

"I believe that the President defined a narrower mission tonight, not an open-ended nation-building exercise. A key component of that mission is providing that the troops will only clear and hold in places where there is capacity to build and transfer beneath them and that there will be significant partnering with Afghans in all of these efforts. That includes finding reliable Afghan partners in governance. If these criteria are met, then there is a chance for success. The President is correct to say the essential focus must be on Pakistan. What happens in Pakistan, particularly in the west, will be more critical to the outcome in Afghanistan than the increase in troops or shift in strategy there. I will support additional troops, providing their deployment stays within the strict understanding of the need to transfer and build as well as partner with Afghans. The only way to be successful is to rapidly transfer responsibility to the Afghans and anything short of that will end in failure, no matter how many troops we send to Afghanistan. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will continue to examine our Afghan policy in public hearings in the coming days and beyond."

Whoa, that is the most closely threaded needle I've ever seen. That is the closest thing I've ever seen to a "non-denial denial" of support. That is some list of "buts" in there. Wow! I have to think about this one.

[beachmom]

1. Interesting. Maybe he should cancel Andrea tomorrow.

I mean, it's easy to put out a statement, but how is he going to keep this "saying positive things, while not exactly endorsing the strategy" dance on live TV?

Key sentence, that kind of falls apart by the second sentence:

I will support additional troops, providing their deployment stays within the strict understanding of the need to transfer and build as well as partner with Afghans. The only way to be successful is to rapidly transfer responsibility to the Afghans and anything short of that will end in failure, no matter how many troops we send to Afghanistan.

I'm for troops going in as long as they go back out FAST. Not sure how that will work .... And then he says "end in failure" as a final thought. Double Hmmm.

Frankly, I like the statement, because it means he is not that far from us on this.

[YvonneCa]

2. And it explains the...

...eighteen months, in and out, for the 'surge' in troops.

[wisteria]

5. He is offering cautious support to the President who had a tough decision to make.

After all, Senator Kerry has said in the past that we can not just pull out of Afghanistan and no one was talking about doing that. And, that we stay because of Pakistan. I just hope there is a good strategy to back up this troop increase. Obama wasn't clear about this tonight.

[karynnj]

9. I do think that there is always more a risk with live statements and

this written one is nuanced even for Kerry. The danger is obvious - we have all seen Kerry comments from, say 2003, where less than full sentences are misused to distort his positions. But, only bumper sticker type positions can not be distorted that way.

But, I think that his is an important voice and he needs to be out there. During the campaign, Kerry did a great job in being a surrogate for Obama without disguising times when they disagreed (like on drilling offshore). I suspect what he will do is elaborate and make a case on those things that he agrees on.

I think it is important that Kerry and others in similar positions to speak as otherwise the voices will likely be mostly from the extremes. The left saying to get out and that it is an immoral occupation and the right saying that giving the generals everything they ask will guarantee a victory, often spelled out as a democracy, with a functioning economy and civil rights for women. Though DU will cheer on its side, our side will become marginalized as they will be easily spun as negative. This could leave the public pushing Obama to expand the mission and to a definition of success far higher than the one Obama spelled out.

Here, it sounds like, while Obama's plan is clearly not Kerry's, Obama's stated mission is closer to Kerry's than to Biden's (pure counterterrorism) or McChrystal's. I think it is also close to what Levin has been asking for. Kerry's warning in that last sentence seems to be against mission creep that pulls the Afghans in less and expands our role. I think there is real value with an honest evaluation and elaboration of Obama's plan and with people like Kerry giving conditional approval rather than unqualified support.

[ProSense]

3. It's a good statement

I posted it here

[wisteria]

4. I suppose we all will read this a little differently, but this is Senator Kerry being

true to his beliefs. He supports the president, but his support is not open-ended and is contingent on the clear outline he presented. I like that he will continue to assess the situation in his capacity as chairman of the SFRC. This is actually a little tougher of a stand then I have heard him take in the past.
I am going to go back and re-read his speech from October- I want to see how it compares to this statement.

[fedupinBushcountry]

6. It is a good statement

JK is still true to his beliefs, he still sees this as not a military ending, as he said many times this cannot be won militarily. I'm with JK, I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt and I know JK will be the first one to criticize if he sees this leading in a different direction.

IMO, Obama is trying to please to many people and still not going with his gut feeling as he has done with healthcare reform,etc. To me that is what is hurting him the most. I just wish he would take a giant step and do something on his own and quit listening to his advisors ( especially Clinton ones). JMO There was a lot of stress showing in his face tonight, I hope and pray that he succeeds, that's all I can do for him now.

[ObamaKerryDem]

11. You know, I had a much longer response to this, but my stupid computer lost it..

..:( lol But I'll just say that I totally agree with you. :fistbump: I think Senator Kerry struck a really good balance in his statement--between support for the President and giving him the room to show that his policy will work and his own conviction on the subject, both in his capacity as SFRC chair and, perhaps most importantly, by virtue of his own, very personal experience with war. I hope the discussion continues throughout this process. I just hate that Pres. Obama was left to clean up this huge mess by the last administration..among all the other messes. :thumbsdown:

[MBS]

12. "" " " "" " " n/t

[karynnj]

13. I think you said what many of us feel - it is a good balance nt

[karynnj]

7. Your summary says it all

Now I see why Dick Durbin's response yesterday was on the lines of "Obama took months to reach this decision, I need time to give a response to it."

Kerry's comment speaks of details that were not included in what really was a pretty vague speech. Other than having an explicit troop number and an explicit date to start withdrawals, the rest was not spelled out. Some of the commentary yesterday was that this was the most narrowed definition of our mission yet. It sounds like Kerry intends to be vigilant in pushing to not allow it to again expand. (Even yesterday, there were some still speaking democracy.)

Speaking of continuing to provide oversight, there is a hearing tomorrow at 9:00 am with Hillary, Gates and Mullen. Yesterday when a nominations hearing happened, the new SFRC website had a very prominent link to the live video on the home page - in the top left corner in a bright orange color - so I assume that will happen tomorrow as well. (That site will be fantastic when done.)

[Inuca]

8. To call it cautious

is an understatement. You said it perfectly: "the most closely threaded needle". Durbin's non-statement statement is also very telling. As for myself... I really do not know what to think, I really do not. The gut reaction is that I do not like it, but 1. I do not trust guts much, mine even less than some; and 2. I keep going back to the obvious fact that I have VERY limited information about what's really going on, so it's practically impossible to form a truly informed opinion. Incidentally, this also applies to the huge majority of people out there, be they pundits, politicos, keyboard fighters, or whatever, that are anything but shy in voicing their opinion as if it were the absolute truth.

[Mass]

10. I agree, It is certainly a very cautious statement of support.

What bothers me is that, from the excerpt I read and saw, neither president Obama nor vice-president Biden seem happy about the solution either. It seems more like a "least worst option" than anything else. From what I saw, few elected democrats are coming to their support. Here in MA, not only did the candidates for the Senate seat oppose the plan during a debate yesterday, but most elected dems do not support at all sending more troops (which makes Kerry's support look a lot stronger that it seems from this statement).

In fact, the strongest supporters I heard for this plan were Repubs.

I understand that Kerry had little room to play. He is, after all, chair of the SFRC and there is little doubt he was involved in this exercise. In addition, this plan seem to be fairly along the lines of what he proposed a couple months ago. But it is my feeling they will be very alone these next few months, and should not hope for Democratic allies to support them.