Good article on Senator Kerry from NY Mag.

[wisteria]

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/67402/


"Kerry has embraced his senatorial role with new vigor, emerging as arguably the most important Democrat in the upper chamber, and certainly its most influential voice on two of the most pressing issues of the moment: energy/climate change and the war in Afghanistan."

"Beyond the tactical maneuvering, what’s notable about Kerry’s posture is its clarity, force, and passion..."

[YvonneCa]

1. Good article. Thanks for...

...posting.

[Inuca]

2. Wow! What a quote!

Going to the link now & thanks for it!

[karynnj]

3. Nice article from a usually very snarky source

New York magazine never ever "got" Kerry - not in 2004, not in 2006, when he was doing for Iraq what they are now asking him to do on Afghanistan. They prefered almost any Democrat - from Hillary, who they pushed to even Bob Kerrey! As such, this is a huge change. (We got it for years because of the NYC activities stuff)

I am of two minds on the comment on passion, force and clarity. One mind says that I think he ALWAYS had that, but then I remember that the 5 Faneuil Hall speeches in 2006 and 2007 had those qualities far more than his 2004 speeches - other than the alternative energy/environment one. However, we all know how little coverage those incredible speeches had. They actually showed more passion, vision and clarity than anything Obama's beautiful hopeful oratory did and certainly more than Hillary's brittle speeches that seemed more like finger nails on a chalk board did. I almost wonder, if Kerry could have gotten to the same point that he was in 2006 without a 2004 run. If that were case, I think he would have been unbeatable.

I wonder if the reason that this author did not see these qualities in the past is that though they seem to always be who Kerry is, so is a filter of thoughtfulness, politeness, and moderation. Even in 1971, he did not overstate the points he was forcefully making - as nearly every activist has a tentency to do. In 2004, the complexities caused by his IWR might have made that clarity, purposeness and vision more clouded than at other times.

His comments - and comments of others on Kerry's Afghanistan positions over time seem to suffer from wanting to classify everyone as For or Against. There is an odd similarity to Kerry's Iraq position. In both, if you look at what he said in full speeches where he had the latitude to recommend what only a President could do, he was absolututely consistent. The problem is when the thoughtful reccomendations are not the President's course of action - and the writers feel the need to label him as a "supporter" or a "critic".

On Afghanistan, Kerry's hearings last year did clearly spell out the problems with the plan that Obama adopted. The failures are coming exactly from the forces that generated concerns from Kerry and the various people testifying. The media seems to have completely forgotten those hearings, Kerry's speeches and op-eds and their own articles in which Kerry and Reed were said to being pulling against the McChrystal plan. They consentrate only on the fact that Kerry agreed (with reservations) to hold off his critism of Obama's Afghanistan policy.

I don't see Kerry's two comments on Wikileaks to be contradictory - or back pedalling. Their characterization of them creates that difference. From what I've read - which is likely less than anyone here as I just returned home from a vacation where I spent almost no time following the news - it does not seem there are many things that were not already known. (I liked Frank Rich's comparision of the Pentagon papers to them)

I suspect - maybe unfairly - that they will end up disappointed in how Kerry will handle Afghanistan. They would love someone with Kerry's stength, eloquence and purpose leading their charge - likely a call to get out. I have no doubt that Kerry will do whatever he thinks is the right thing to do. Anyone reaching the point of seeing that Pakistan is the real reason we are still here, can see that we might be there just to give a fragile (and far from perfect) government in Pakistan a chance.

On the diplomatic policy, it is interesting how low profile Holbrooke and Clinton have been. Isn't Afghanistan/Pakistan Holbrooke's entire job?
It does seem odd that only as people have started to question it that it is being called Kerry's. It also seems that all the Kerry/Lugar calls on the state department to maintain transparency on where the money goes have to be amphlified. (The leaks really back NOT giving the money blindly to the Pakistan government - supporting Kerry's and Lugar's concerns.)

[ProSense]

4. Well said. I like

the quote Wisteria cited. There are some good points in the article, but John Heilemann has always rubbed me the wrong way. Frankly, I'm tired of articles about Kerry trying to find himself, and what is the point about Ted Kennedy and Afghanistan? Kerry's own experiences are much more suited to guiding his decisions here. Also, the first couple of paragraphs seems so irrelevant to this entire piece.

[Mass]

5. I often disagree with you, but on this, I agree.

It is as if the media were so engrossed in their own memes that they had to invent a rational to recognize Kerry, but it is true that I am getting tired of these articles explaining how Kerry changed.

[wisteria]

7. I think the writer is trying to make a case for Sen. Kerry making a name and place for himself

and trying to fill the void left by Senator Kennedy. It did seem pieced together at times, like several articles were referenced and pieced together -maybe in an attempt to seem fair and complete.

[wisteria]

6. First, welcome back and thanks for a very thoughtful and insightful post.

I agree with much you have said, and for me, this particular comment stands out,

"I suspect - maybe unfairly - that they will end up disappointed in how Kerry will handle Afghanistan. They would love someone with Kerry's strength, eloquence and purpose leading their charge - likely a call to get out. I have no doubt that Kerry will do whatever he thinks is the right thing to do. Anyone reaching the point of seeing that Pakistan is the real reason we are still here, can see that we might be there just to give a fragile (and far from perfect) government in Pakistan a chance."

[TayTay]

8. I have been reading the hearing testimony from the recent SFRC

hearing. It is http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=d8605299-5056-a032-5273-667a814db0c8">quite interesting. Most of Sen. Kerry's allies and favorite guests on the subject of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are telling him that the timeline itself is the problem. This is a huge problem for Sen. Kerry. The good Senator has argued that setting a deadline will force action on the positive side and create urgency. Dr. Kilcullen and Amb. Crocker are saying that the Afghans will wait us out, as they have historically waited out other invaders from Alexander the Great on down.

The point for Americans is to neutralize a threat in that region to American security. This is a legitimate concern, given the history of that area and the fact that 9/11 was plotted from that country. We can't retreat and we can't move forward. Dr. Kilcullen gives 4 reasons for why Afghnistan is not improving; he blames it on a cycle of instability:

Afghanistan is experiencing a cycle of increasing instability and violence, with four
key drivers:
(1) Corruption and criminality in the government, societal elites and the
international assistance effort, which enables and encourages
(2) bad behavior by government officials and power-brokers, which in turn
creates
(3) popular rage and disillusionment, which empowers the insurgency.
(4) The war against the insurgents creates opportunities and incentives for
corruption and criminality, driving the cycle onward.

The problem is huge. I have grave doubts that America has the ability to turn this around. I don't think we have the troops or the trained and specialized personnel to do what we need to do. Perhaps more bribes in Pakistan are needed. (I bet we sell them more drones.)

BTW, I love the cultural exchange program that Sen. Kerry has proposed. Exactly the right thing to do.
He also identifies 4 critical areas to look at:

We are currently experiencing four major problems in Afghanistan, most of which are
well-known and of long standing.

At the political level, our most critical problem is the credibility, viability and
legitimacy of the Afghan government. In this form of warfare you are only as good
as the government you are supporting, and this is a government which lacks
credibility in the eyes of many Afghans, lacks legitimacy in the eyes of many in the
international community, and therefore needs extremely substantial reform if it is to
be a viable partner.

At the strategic level, the critical problem is the timeline – the anticipated July 2011
deadline to begin handing over control for security to the Afghan government. This
deadline makes every other problem a crisis, it prompts the Afghan population to sit
on the fence because they believe we are leaving and they fear being targeted by
the Taliban once we leave, it undermines confidence on the part of the Karzai
government and so encourages disunity and the seeking of peace terms with the
Taliban, it creates a fear of abandonment on the part of the Northern Alliance
commanders which may encourage thoughts of civil war or secession, it encourages
us to continue seeking short-term, quick-fix solutions, and it is deeply damaging to
economic confidence.

At the operational level, the key problem is the continuing active safe haven in
Pakistan for the Afghan Taliban. Unless this safe haven begins to be seriously
addressed, the Taliban can survive tactical defeat in Afghanistan, retreat to their safe
haven and await a favorable opportunity to return to the fight once we leave.
At the tactical level, the key problem remains lack of resources: the lack of sufficient
troop numbers (especially Afghan troop numbers) to provide permanent security
presence to the bulk of the population, the lack of good-quality police, the lack of
local civilian officials who are both competent and locally legitimate, lack of certain
key military enablers and civilian specialists.

All these problems must be addressed as a matter of extreme urgency if we wish to
turn the campaign around. All these problems, with the exception of the timeline, are
long-standing issues in the campaign. And all these problems will require
congressional leadership of a very high order.

[Luftmensch067]

9. I agree with this analysis, Tay, but

I noted Senator Kerry's comment during the hearing with Crocker and Kilcullen (and sorry I can't remember the woman's name, but I found her testimony hugely compelling!) about having a couple of ideas that he wouldn't share in that public hearing, and then when I heard the Zakaria interview, I had to wonder whether JK's comments therein about essentially creating a regional coalition, possibly including Iran, to help change the picture in Afghanistan might have been one of the ideas he mentioned in the hearing. Personally, I find that idea characteristic of JK's m.o. -- find yourself in an impossible situation with no solution? Find a way to change the situation so that there is at least a possibility of a solution. I'd love to hear what others think of this.

[TayTay]

10. I love that idea.

However, it contains elements that will be a very hard sell. (Then again, there are no good answers here.) There are also elements that are going to be taken as a "sell out" by a faction in the U.S. just as Vietnam's ending was seen as a sell-out by some. (I hate that, but it happened. It will happen here too.)

Ultimately, we can't stay in Afghanistan. We do not have the money, time or personnel to change Afghanistan. We can assist the population and interfere in parts of Dr. Kilcullen's cycle, but we can't save Afghanistan. Only the Afghani people can do that. We can try and interfere at key places in the cycle and interfere with Pakistan.

I disagree with Dr. Kilcullen on the timeline somewhat. I don't see the timeline as one event, I see it as a fractionalized event. Certainly, his logic that the Afghani elements will "wait us out" is true. However, can't we interfere in this cycle as well, or get some other faction to interfere for us. Hence the Iran question.

However, Iran is embedded in the Republican mindset as the Great Satan of the Islamic World. This is going to be incredibly difficult to dislodge as the Repubs see political favor in ramping up opposition to Iran. I wonder if that can be overcome.

[Luftmensch067]

11. I wonder, too

But one of the reasons I love Senator Kerry's work so much is that he's got the guts to even think of trying. It is an almost impossible and highly unlikely sell, but bless him for never shirking a challenge!

[ProSense]

13. This goes to show why Afghanistan is more complex than Iraq.

The problem is not only the level of corruption, but also the fact that a vast majority of the country is nothing like Kabul and Khandahar. Outside of a strong alliance with the regional powers focused on civilian efforts, I don't really see what the U.S. can do.

[ProSense]

12. OT, about the jobs bill

Kerry's statement posted here. I noted in the OP that Scott Brown voted against this bill.