Boston Globe article suggesting Kerry may lead call for change in policy in Afghanistan

[karynnj]

The article can't really be summarized by 4 paragraphs. What is clear is that Kerry is planning some pretty intense hearings that will question whether our policy is right. The full article needs to be read.

Once a key supporter of President Obama’s surge of troops in Afghanistan, Kerry said he has concluded that the US strategy in Afghanistan has to be revised. He is calling for a more limited focus and fewer American troops than the 155,000 that are in place now.

“What I don’t want is to be party to a policy that continues simply because it is there and in place,’’ Kerry said in an interview about his evolving views of the war in Afghanistan. “That would be like Vietnam. And that is what I am determined to try to prevent.’’
<snip>
“While he is supportive of the administration, Kerry has become the conscience,’’ said Stephen Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank.
<snip>
“I don’t work for the administration,’’ Kerry said. “I work for the people of Massachusetts and I have a responsibility to myself and my conscience to get this right. I am determined to call it the way the truth tells me it ought to be called.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/02/06/kerry_favors_reduced_us_role_in_afghanistan_war/?page=1

Here, where they see a change from "key surge supporter", I see a reluctant, conditional supporter of the policy that Obama chose that was in contrast to the policy that Kerry publicly recommended. The current failure, governance, is exactly what Kerry, in late 2009 before the surge, had publicly spoken of as his concern about the Obama policy.

There is also a lot of Vietnam vs Afghanistan where it seems that people are speaking of different things and not understanding what the other is saying. It is possible that there are many similarities between the two, yet they are not completely parallel. Kerry has consistently pointed out that one difference is that we had no strategic purpose in Vietnam - and do in Afghanistan.

Kerry's hearing with Holbrooke last summer was asking some real hard questions, but it looks like the hearings to come will probe deeper into the policy. This will likely be very interesting and extremely controversial. It should at least end the constant comments that Kerry is auditioning for Secretary of State. I can imagine that this will be extremely difficult for Kerry, but there are echoes of his Dissent line that it is wrong to stay quiet if the policy is wrong. This may be why ultimately that Kerry is better off in position where he can speak out.

(Very nice Kerry photo.)

[TayTay]

1. That was a great article, I agree

It was one of the best recent articles on Sen. Kerry as Chair of FRC.

I like Andrew Bacevich. His books can be a difficult read because Prof Bacevich is arguing from the point of view of an apostate to war. I am deeply heartened to hear that Sen. Kerry spent an hour or so alone with the good Professor, exploring his views.

Sen. Kerry is a "thinker." This is one of his best attributes and the one that leaves him open to criticism from his foes. The people who dislike the Senator dislike him precisely because he takes time to sort out what he is thinking and builds a solid foundation under his views. In this age of 24 hour news when the punditry wants everything now and wants all opinions now, it is rare to see someone who stops to think. Again, this is one of the great strengths of the good Senator from MA. It also makes him vulnerable to his critics. (DU is two-faced on this as well. The often heard remark that Kerry lacked fire in the 04 campaign and the surprise when someone actually listens to the Senator speak with conviction and purpose are part of that disconnect that wants a "man of action" not a person who thinks things through. The arguments are hypocritical and deeply anti-intellectual, btw.)

We saw Sen. Kerry become a force of nature against the Iraq War policies of George Bush in 2006. He was right. His speeches and focus during that time period were superb. The fact that he was right made him unpopular with members of his own party who did not want a moral voice dictating Democratic policy going forward. It is going to be completely fascinating to watch these hearings.

It is not interesting to watch someone like Reagan or Bush "deliberate," mostly because they don't do it. These folks found that action was virtue and that thinking something through was somehow "wimpy." This is the American anti-intellectualism in full bloom. It gets people killed, imho, but it is a part of the American character to admire action for action's sake.

(This is also an ironic discussion. Sen. Kerry also seems to be something of an adrenaline junkie who loves challenging sports and loves to compete. There are interesting competing strains in him, which is why he is so fascinating to watch.)

[Mass]

2. Silly Sunday. HP has this has Kerry breaks with Obama and the GD thread about this

is turning into one of these silly Sundays thread.

And I am still left to wonder how this is different from his previous position (except at the margins).

It is a great article, but way to subtle for the blogosphere.

[karynnj]

3. I agree with you that this is not really a shift from this summer

when there were articles that he sharply questioned Holbrooke on Marjah. Not to mention, the concerns expressed now are the very ones he expressed concern would happen back before the surge happened.

[karynnj]

4. Interesting article that looks favorably on Kerry's hearings - from Center for American Progress

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) voiced his concern in a Boston Globe interview published this weekend that current U.S. policy in Afghanistan not be allowed to “continue<…> simply because it is there and in place.” Sen. Kerry also announced his intention to hold hearings reviewing Afghanistan strategy this spring. His proposal of greater congressional scrutiny offers a much-needed opportunity to more robustly examine assumptions underpinning America’s current policies in Afghanistan and the region, and their effectiveness at addressing our medium- and long-term strategic concerns.

These questions went largely unchallenged in the White House’s own review released last December and they need a more thorough public debate. Strategic drift and crisis management have characterized much of the Afghanistan war’s nine years to date. Breaking this pattern requires tackling the difficult questions of how to conduct a durable transition and establish a sustainable peace in Afghanistan now, rather than expecting a dramatic turn of fate three years into the future and leaving current policy trajectories unchanged.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/kerry_transition.html