Sen. Kerry: US can't 'walk away' from Afghanistan

[bigtree]

from The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67693-kerry-us-cant-walk-away-from-afghanistan


11/13/09 01:18 PM ET

The U.S. can't "walk away" from its effort in Afghanistan, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) emphasized Friday.

"I don't think you can just pull out; I don't think anybody believes that," Kerry said during an appearance on the Don Imus show, broadcast by the Fox Business Network. "You can't just walk away for a lot of different reasons."

"The Taliban has an ongoing relationship with al-Qaeda," he said. "It is the center of their efforts globally, even though they've moved more to Yemen and Somalia and other places -- where we don't, incidentally, have 68,000 troops or any troops."

"There's a lot of pressure on al-Qaeda right now, and we want to keep that on them," Kerry added.

Keeping pressure, Kerry indicated, includes not losing sight of significant challenges facing the U.S. in neighboring Pakistan.

"Be very careful about confusing a wholesale effort in Afghanistan with what we need to do in Pakistan," he explained. "One of the things I've pointed out: we've spent about $243 billion in Afghanistan cumulatively over the last eight years. We've spent maybe $10 billion less in Pakistan in that period of time. But Pakistan, everybody acknowledges, is of much more serious national security consequence to the United States."


read : http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67693-kerry-us-cant-walk-away-from-afghanistan

[polichick]

1. The main reason we can't just walk away is that private contractors...

...who are making billions wouldn't stand for it.

[YvonneCa]

19. I hate to say this (AGAIN) by Kerry's words are being spun AGAIN...

...as usual. People need to listen to his full statements and policy speeches on Afghanistan. It's like during the Iraq debate, he was accused of saying we should 'cut and run' when he never said that. It was a total 'straw man argument.'

When will we stop falling for this spin? When will we wise up and realize that these are the same tactics the other side keeps using?

John Kerry is not the enemy here. Dang!

[polichick]

24. I'm not referring to Kerry - just saying why we can't leave.nt

[Echo In Light]

28. Chomsky said of Zinn's 67' book, The Logic of Withdrawal...

"people couldn't even read it, they couldn't understand the words"

[polichick]

45. Ha! Exactly. Here's a recent look at our contractor situation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/opinion/04friedman.html?scp=3&sq=contractors,%20afghanistan&st=cse

[YvonneCa]

55. I know. Sorry, I meant to post this in a different...

...place. I reposted it below. :blush:

[polichick]

58. No problem - this is a thread about Kerry. I SHOULD've been posting about him. nt

[blm]

2. Hill headline cherry picks to make it sound like he sides with hawk position - he doesn't.

Kerry just wrote a comprehensive piece that picks apart the escalation position and advises a more realistic strategy, one more specific to the actual Al Qaeda. His concerns fall in more with Biden.

Hill writer distorted his position, no doubt, deliberately.

Hope the kneejerkers step back and bother to read Kerry's ACTUAL VIEW that hasn't been spoonfed to them by RW distorters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8738729&mesg_id=8738729


Beware the Revisionists
By Sen. John Kerry

We must dispense with a dangerous myth. In an effort to pressure the president to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, armchair commanders have dusted off the old canard that "we could have won in Vietnam if only … " Some revisionists contend we could have won "if only" Congress had not balked at the military's insatiable hunger for more troops and more bombing. Others argue that pacification of the countryside and training of Vietnamese soldiers could have carried the day "if only" we had stuck with these policies longer. Still others argue that we could have won "if only" President Johnson had made a much stronger American commitment when he first decided to send combat troops in 1965.

Let me be clear: more than 58,000 American troops died because they were sent into battle based on false assumptions, flawed goals, and faulty strategies. Yes, we adopted smarter tactics near the end, but by then the die was cast. History has definitively branded Vietnam for the mistake it was—no one should believe that the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and at least 1.5 million Vietnamese were somehow not quite enough.

So what should we learn from Vietnam? The lessons aren't simple, particularly when applied to a very different country—with a vastly different history, culture, and geography—in a different era. But some comparisons with Afghanistan are apt.

We are once again fighting an insurgency in a rural country with a weak central government. Americans were outsiders in a complex war among Vietnamese. Our allies were corrupt. Our adversaries were ruthless. Enemy territory was everywhere. Last month I was traveling down a dirt road in Afghanistan's Helmand province in a heavily armored vehicle. Through thick, bullet-proof windows, I could see Afghans staring as we rumbled past. Their numb looks of confusion took me back 40 years to my days as a young Navy officer in Vietnam. Once again, our enemy blends in with the local population and finds sanctuary in a neighboring country. Once again, the danger of being perceived as an occupying force by a war-weary population remains perilous.

With Afghanistan, as with Vietnam, we have a president facing pressure from the military. President Kennedy was strong enough to refuse to be pushed into combat operations. His successor, President Johnson, feared a public dispute with his commanders, so he failed to stand up to them when they insisted that the United States was headed for disaster without an escalation. Combat forces were rushed in with tragic results. More recently, whoever leaked Gen. Stanley McChrystal's assessment that we would fail in Afghanistan without additional forces was trying to pressure President Obama to sign off on a big troop increase before his own deliberations were done. Those inside and outside the military demanding fast action risk subverting the deliberative process and putting us on a road to the mindless escalation that cost tens of thousands of American lives in Vietnam.

But the situation in Afghanistan is also very different from the challenge we faced in Southeast Asia. Vietnam was a mistaken proxy war against worldwide communism: nothing there realistically threatened the United States. The other major powers at the time of the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union and China, had no interest in seeing us escape the quagmire. Yet in September 2001, mass murder was plotted against us from Afghan soil. We all know why we invaded Afghanistan, and so do the Russians, the Chinese, and other world powers. There was no contrived Gulf of Tonkin rationale. It was not a mistake.

Now we must choose a smart way forward so no one asks whether we've made a mistake in staying. The main lesson that Obama must absorb from Vietnam is the necessity to explain our goals in Afghanistan, and to choose clear and realistic strategies to meet them. In this war, the enemy can be defeated by better government and effective economic assistance. Unlike the relatively popular Viet Cong, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are widely despised. If we can provide sufficient security and support to our Afghan allies, there's little reason they can't win the battle for hearts and minds. Moreover, Russia and China have economic and security interests in helping us stabilize the situation. Harnessing those interests can help us.

However we proceed, we need to recognize that this is an Afghan war for the future of Afghanistan. We entered Vietnam thinking of it as a key part of the larger Cold War struggle. But the Vietnamese made clear this was a war about their country—Vietnam—not about America or the Soviet Union. We need to make a decision about Afghanistan strategy based on the reality of the place, not some imagined sense of what we wish it to be.

I pledged to myself long ago to be informed by Vietnam, not imprisoned by it. The easiest way to make a mistake is to tolerate a debate that sells our country short. In the case of Afghanistan, politics has reduced a difficult mission in a complex country to a simple, headline-ready "yes or no" on troop numbers. What we need is a realistic assessment of our strategy, military and civilian combined. One of the architects of the Vietnam War, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed decades later that he knew victory was no longer possible well before the American death toll had reached half its eventual total. He offers a horrific lesson that the time to voice concerns is now.

[bigtree]

4. I don't think the headline has that effect

It goes right to his main concern, Pakistan, and provides a good summary of quotes to outline his position. He's still one who believes that the occupation is necessary to whatever he wants to achieve in Pakistan.

[blm]

6. You have more faith in The Hill than I do. I read it the way they intend.

They COULD give a fuller expansion of his views - we all know he and Gore talk in details and nuance because they deal in big picture policies, historic and longterm. Very easy to cherry pick and distort for those unfamiliar with the more detailed views.

[bigtree]

23. he certainly does have a nuanced view.

I'm just not as impressed with it. I view any continuation there as folly, even though the Senator makes as good a case as any for remaining engaged. I don't really fault him for trying to see his prescription through. He is (as you know) the main push behind the tripling of aid to Pakistan which is as much as this Congress has done so far as an alternative to warfare in the region. If there is a 'diplomatic solution' to be married with the president's commitment of troops to secure the regime in Kabul and secure the border, I'm certain Sen. Kerry will be leading it. But, as I say, I'm not one who is willing to invest a lot of faith and support behind any plan which has us remaining engaged in militarily propping up the mayor of Kabul (neither is he, if the regime doesn't shape up). I've bothered to post much of Kerry's progress on his initiative there because I respect his confidence that he's pursuing a reasonable solution to the evolving quagmire. I interpret his counsel to remain engaged there as his way of leveraging his own ambitions with the president's seeming willingness to keep our forces in place, rather than some outright endorsement of every aspect of it. That independent thinking is evident in the speech he made and in the statements he's made afterward.

[blm]

36. But one would never KNOW that based on this short 'news' article that doesn't give any ink

to the all the IFs, ands, and buts, and is nowhere close to touching on the fuller picture expressed in recent months, or even the behind the scenes we KNOW is going on, where Kerry and Biden have been the two guys slowing Obama down, and it looks like Eikenberry came forth to add to their side, which has been outnumbered for months by the hawks Gates, Clinton, Holbrooke, McChrystal and in the senate AND they get the lion's share of corporate media support for their views.

Now THAT'S a long sentence. ;)

[bigtree]

39. I'm glad that you're providing all of that nuance for folks here

But, I don't think that every article or post reasonably can or should come with a full synopsis of views and positions, so I really don't fault this rag for summarizing his most recent statements. Bottom line, though, if a vote were held to begin an immediate withdrawal (which is my interest), the Senator would vote no, based, I would surmise, on his ongoing effort toward Pakistan. The rest isn't worth the lives that will be lost pursuing his cause there, in my view.

[blm]

41. Well....knowing that Kerry prefers terrorism be dealt with as a law enforcement issue

that only uses specially trained anti-terror military forces for targeted missions and strikes, I trust he knows exactly what balance needs to be struck.

And.....If the rest of DC, the newsmedia, and American people had heeded Kerry after his work exposing global terror networks and tracking their illegal financing there would be no war in Afghanistan right now, would there?

No Bush2 and no 9-11.

[bigtree]

42. blm

I STILL have my Kerry bumper sticker (proudly) displayed in the window of my truck. The ONLY sticker.

[blm]

46. Saw one today in Charlotte. I usually see about 3-4 a week.

.

[bigtree]

47. still love ya

I'm not very lovable these days tho . . .

[blm]

50. Hey... try menopause AND prednisone at the same time...heheh....

but....I fortunately still have my great memory. Not perfect....but, pretty great. ;)

[emulatorloo]

54. YOU POOR THING.

You are being put through hell. Tell your friends and family I said "Its the predisone, that is not how BLM really is. SERIOUSLY"

Hope every thing goes well for you.

[blm]

67. Actually, I'm not having the pred-head problems, at all. The physical side effects are

a huge annoyance, though.

Whenever I feel even the slightest pred-head tension, I force myself to relax so it never gets near my family.

[karynnj]

60. I've seen many of your past posts in support of Kerry

That is one reason I answered in the detail I did.

[karynnj]

59. If a vote were held, it would be because a Senator

wrote legislation on it. In the September 17 SFRC, Feingold spoke against immediately leaving. Feingold has spoken of wanting a deadline. He is, to my knowledge the ONLY Senator to have done that. So, I think between these two facts - there is no Senator who would support an immediate pull out - which is ALL Kerry ruled out.

In an earlier post, you referred to "Kerry's ambitions". The fact is I think the reported Kennedy comment that Kerry now has the advantage - as he did after 1980 - with no one being able to question his motives as he won't run for President again. His ambition is likely - pure and simple - to be a very good Senator and to do what is best for MA, the country and the world. Other than the Presidency, he likely has everything he ever wanted - a very safe Senate seat, likely his until he chooses to leave, a wonderful family and many friends. Just from his actions in 1971, he already has a secure place in history.

If you watched the hearings he did on Afghanistan, you would see that they included a rich variety of witnesses and they covered many issues. The frame for all of them was the desire to identify options and to test their assumptions. Kerry's questioning of all the witnesses representing all views was tough. From the questioning, I had no idea what his preconceived preferences were and he in fact was toughest on the things close to where he came out. This was an intellectually rigorous examination of the range of options. Watching his CFR speech, it was interesting seeing words, phrases, cautions and views that came from those hearings.

You can disagree with where he ended up, but I think it unfair to question his motives. There is no good case to be made for him trading his support for something to gain anything. The fact is the best he can give Obama is his honest best ideas on what to do. In addition, what he says publicly will be what he is judged on - which is an incentive to lay out the most thoughtful, best policy - in a situation where there is no good solution, rather a least bad solution.

What seems clear is that he rejects:
- just leaving as do all Senators
- he rejects the pure counterterrorism approach and has stated why he things it won't work
- He rejects the McChrystal escalation.

[bigtree]

63. it all still amounts to staying past where I think is prudent

As for mentioning his ambitions, I was merely referring to his stated goals, not some political nonsense.

[karynnj]

64. You mean to prevent AQ from having a safe haven and not furtther destabalizing Pakistan?

I see what you are meaning. It is hard to see how any of Afghanistan meets his requirement that there is a credible government that can come in behind the troops as the place is secured. It also seems that that condition is essential to not having an occupation.

I suspect that it is because the goals are important to our national security that he has a very low bar there. I would bet though that if that bar is not met over time, he will likely become one of the strongest voices for leaving. At this point, I think his excellent hearings and his analysis are his biggest contributions - and they may lead others to reach different policy recommendations.

[karynnj]

17. He is definately not for occupation

Not in Afghanistan, and definitely not in Pakistan. The fact is that he was the first major politician to use the word occupation in connection with Iraq - and he did that in 2004, while running for President when he brought up the issue of no permanent bases in Iraq in teh first debate.

[bigtree]

18. show me where he says we should leave Afghanistan.

(It's an occupation)

[redqueen]

5. Did you hear what Tony Brown said in a recent interview?

That Obama is "very much in line" with Brown's and McChrystal's thinking on Afghanistan?

The pushing is coming from all directions it seems.

[SIMPLYB1980]

7. But you have to admit all the pushing is fun to watch.

Mostly because Obama is just going to do what ever he wants to on this anyway.

[redqueen]

10. Heh, yeah...

I love how for weeks the pressure has been on to MAKE A DECISION NOW NOW NOW STOP DITHERING BLAH BLAH BLAH... lol.

The Mighty Wurlitzer is so used to calling the tune and having everyone reflexively start dancing... It's great seeing him just ignore it. :)

[bigtree]

31. fucking great for the folks who are fighting and dying at the point of his decision

Most Americans want us out of there. I'll bet they're not dancing.

(Whoopee, we're all going to die!)

[redqueen]

33. In Vietnam the soldiers stopped following orders, which did a lot to bring the war to an end.

That is always an option.

As for raging against the machine... enjoy.

[bigtree]

35. what kind of shit is that? Enjoy?

I think it's disgusting that you view my concern that way. I've been advocating against this same, continuing militarism since '03. Call it what you want, but I am as sincere in this effort as when I began against the last administration's unnecessary militarism. Sad that you have such a cynical view of the effort I make here.

[redqueen]

37. "Whoopee we're all gonna die!"

The 'effort' you make here is mostly wasted. The very few here who support sending more troops or even staying around are not going to be swayed by cut & pasted articles.

[bigtree]

40. 'your effort is wasted'

nice. (I'll hold my thought on what I think yours here on this thread is worth)

[redqueen]

43. Nice edit!

I'll hold my thought on the issues you seem to have with perceptions and reality.

[bigtree]

44. too late

I read you loud and clear.

[YvonneCa]

20. I hate to say this (AGAIN) by Kerry's words are being spun AGAIN...

...as usual. People need to listen to his full statements and policy speeches on Afghanistan. It's like during the Iraq debate, he was accused of saying we should 'cut and run' when he never said that. It was a total 'straw man argument.'

When will we stop falling for this spin? When will we wise up and realize that these are the same tactics the other side keeps using?

John Kerry is not the enemy here. Dang!


(Reposted from up thread.)

[redqueen]

26. "When will we stop falling for this spin?"

Good question.

I keep thinking that decades of having stuff spun from hell to breakfast will make people question this stuff...

[bigtree]

29. how do you interpret 'You can't just walk away'?

It's an endorsement of staying. The spin is trying to qualify that and nuance it for someone who thinks we should leave yesterday.

[Orsino]

69. This is the fallacy of extremes.

Somewhere between the ridiculous positions of cut-and-run and stay-forever lies the policy we're eventually going to pursue.

It's not an endorsement of staying; it's a recognition that our exit is going to take the form of a gradual drawdown.

[YvonneCa]

79. Thank you! n/t

[bigtree]

27. this post (article) doesn't imply that he's the 'enemy' at all

If folks want to read his full views on Afghanistan then I suggest they do so. But you can't deny that he's willing to continue the occupation. I don't know how else you can read that the U.S. can't 'just walk away from Afghanistan'. He can reasonably be judged on that assertion alone, especially by those who don't see a bloody thing worth fighting and dying for there. Nuance isn't worth much to that point of view (which I share).

[YvonneCa]

57. That's the problem we had with GWB. Every issue was...

...delineated in black vs. white terms. (You're with us or with the terrorists, etc.) Every issue was framed as a dichotomy...only two choices...no middle ground.

This headline continues it by reporting that Kerry says we can't just walk away...so the other, opposite, choice would be he must want us to stay indefinitely. THAT's just seeing our choices in black and white terms. Kerry's proposals are very 'gray'...to use a 2004 election term, they're 'nuanced.' That nuance gets spun. Neither the people, nor the media, seem to want to take the time to hear and understand what he is saying about policy.

It's time they did, because he tends to be correct. ;) That's all I'm saying.

[bigtree]

66. that's just your interpretation

I'd think the Senator is the one responsible for clearing up any misunderstanding of his statement. Like I said above. Articles and posts can't and usually won't reasonably include a synopsis of his views with every statement he makes. The bottom line though is that he's not going to be one of the legislators calling for us to get out now. There are some doing that, you know. He's evidently not with them on that point. Not with me either, no matter what the nuance is behind his statements in the article. 'Can't just walk away means more meddling and more unnecessary deaths, imo. Nothing to nuance about that.

[YvonneCa]

70. But he HAS made it clear.That's my point. And...

...you're right that it's my interpretation. But my interpretation is based on ALL he says...not just a snippet out of context. Have you seen the speech at CFR?


http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289629-1

[David Zephyr]

53. I agree with you and blm.

This "headline" is a joke.

[bigtree]

62. did he not say that?

did he not mean it?

He's operating in a political theater. He knows the import of his words.

[YvonneCa]

74. Check THESE words...

...on Afghanistan policy:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289629-1

[bigtree]

81. they certainly qualify that statement of his. I don't deny that.

But, those words of qualification mean little to folks who believe, like me, that our very military presence (much more, the military activity) is counterproductive and antithetical to the very ideals and remedies the Senator and the president express in their policy statements and position papers. I just don't believe the U.S. is any good at carrying out behind the force of our military (which he does insist that in place, is, at least initially and for the time being, an integral part of his plan) what the Senator is proscribing and has arranged through funding. I'm not even convinced that it's our proper and legitimate role to continue to meddle in the affairs of these sovereign nations expecting them to adhere to our own nation's interests in pursuing our grudge match against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. As it appears that the Senator's efforts so far in obtaining a tripling of non-military aid to Pakistan will be allowed to marry with whatever course the president decides for the future, I would of course hope and pray for the best. But, all I can see happening as a result of this further meddling and positioning of forces is more deaths (record numbers killed in the last two months after the last escalation was approved to help secure the re-ascendancy of Karzai). If all of that ultimately leads the president to 'walk away' from Afghanistan, I'll be grateful for it's end anyway. But I don't really see the sense in our troops hanging around to see Senator Kerry's plan of action through, or or the president's. He apparently does, for however long he thinks it will take. That's what his statement represents to me. Staying longer. I'm against that.

[Enthusiast]

51. And to think this guy was

elected president in 2004 but we had "Bush The Pretender" in office instead. Enough to make you vomit.

[David Zephyr]

52. I thought the headline also was a dishonest read of Kerry's position.

John Kerry said that this whole thing should have been a police action. He was right when he said it and he would be right to say it again.

I'm weighing in here with you that I also found the headline to be misrepresentative of Kerry's position.

[Mari333]

3. Vietnam is doing just fine without us there. nt

[jasi2006]

8. Oh, yes we can. should have done it sooner in Viet Nam. nt

[karynnj]

9. Here is the video from the Imus show on that - Kerry said nothing that he hasn't said before

http://video.foxbusiness.com/11581357/sen-kerry-cant-just-leave-afghanistan/?category_id=91d8980cac063f4b75bfb77ee220625e1ccf6d9d

[David__77]

11. Yes, it can and it will.

Eventually... the sooner the better.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Pakistan is the new "falling domino". "We have to fight them there, so...."

Same silly song, different singers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Pakistan is the new "falling domino". "We have to fight them there, so...."

Same pathetic song, different singers.

[ProSense]

14. Senator Kerry is not advocating any such thing

In fact, his legislation that was recently signed into law includes significant non-military aid to Pakistan. Kerry has always maintained that the focus should be on figthing terrorism, not fighting war.

[karynnj]

15. True and he has made the case that it is Pakistan's own war against

Al Quaeda and the Taliban.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Good! Can we then count on him to vote against funding the war?

[ProSense]

21. He has before

in the case of Iraq but what does that have to do with the claim you made?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Just what do you think he's advocating when he says this?

"Be very careful about confusing a wholesale effort in Afghanistan with what we need to do in Pakistan," he explained. "One of the things I've pointed out: we've spent about $243 billion in Afghanistan cumulatively over the last eight years. We've spent maybe $10 billion less in Pakistan in that period of time. But Pakistan, everybody acknowledges, is of much more serious national security consequence to the United States."

[ProSense]

25. "what we need to do in Pakistan"

has nothing to do with war.

I rise today to introduce the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act. I believe this legislation will fundamentally change America’s policy toward Pakistan, and I hope that over time it will fundamentally change America’s relationship with the people of Pakistan as well. I especially want to thank my colleague Senator Lugar for his partnership in crafting this bill and his ongoing leadership on this issue.

Mr. President, It is hard to overstate the importance to our national security of Pakistan, a nation which could either serve as a force for stability and progress in a volatile region—or become an epicenter for radical and violence on a cataclysmic scale.

link

[YvonneCa]

75. If you really want to know....

...go here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289629-1

[Hippo_Tron]

65. Considering that John Kerry was on Nixon's enemies list

I find it hard to believe that he is singing the same song.

[walldude]

30. He's right.. we need to RUN away

People don't fucking learn from history or past mistakes.

[Major Hogwash]

32. If not now, when?

9 years is a long time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. When enough bodies come home and we're too broke to buy boot laces for the troops.

[redqueen]

38. Or when the soldiers stop following orders.

That had a lot to do with ending the Vietnam War.

But if the troops believe in their mission, I doubt that'll happen, so... you're probably right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. I just saw this on Yahoo news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_troops_mental_health

Army says morale down among troops in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON – Morale has fallen among soldiers in Afghanistan, where troops are seeing record violence in the 8-year-old war, while those in Iraq show much improved mental health amid much lower violence, the Army said Friday. Soldier suicides in Iraq did not increase for the first time since 2004, according to a new study.

Though findings of two new battlefield surveys are similar in several ways to the last ones taken in 2007, they come at a time of intense scrutiny on Afghanistan as President Barack Obama struggles to come up with a new war strategy and planned troop buildup. There is also perhaps equal new attention focused on the mental health of the force since a shooting rampage at Fort Hood last week in which an Army psychiatrist is charged.

Both surveys showed that soldiers on their third or fourth tours of duty had lower morale and more mental health problems than those with fewer deployments and an ever-increasing number of troops are having problems with their marriages.

The new survey on Afghanistan found instances of depression, anxiety and other psychological problems are about the same as they were in 2007. But it also said there is a shortage of mental health workers to help soldiers who need it, partly because of the buildup Obama already started this year with the dispatch of more than 20,000 extra troops.

[Fire1]

49. "I don't think anybody believes that," Senator Kerry, if you only

knew!!:P

[optimator]

56. yeah we are really going to be invaded by Pakistan

give me a break.
The militants don't have the means, and everyone knows it.

[Selatius]

61. There isn't going to be a military victory in Afghanistan. Every day we lose more and more troops.

Most of the people in the Taliban are local tribesmen with AKs and RPGs, and we've drained hundreds of billions from the treasury trying to beat them. They've been fighting for years, and quite a few of them are veterans who fought against the Red Army when they invaded. While it is true that the US is viewed more favorably by a portion of the population than the USSR, to too many of them, we're seen as just another foreign occupier on their land that needs to be destroyed. If we had studied our history here, we would see that these people are fiercely independent and would struggle against anybody seen as occupying their land. They'd rather fight than be subjects of an occupation.

You can't defeat a group of people like that. We already tried in Viet Nam.

[YvonneCa]

73. And that's just what Kerry has been saying. People need...

...to stop taking things out of context and really listen to what he says on the subject:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289629-1

[Le Taz Hot]

68. Can't imagine why this guy didn't

win the presidency against the worst. president. ever. :sarcasm:

[ChiciB1]

71. I Was One Of Kerry's Biggest Admirers Since Viet Nam... But Now I'm

SO SICK OF WAR, that ANY excuses to stay and fight turn me off! COMPLETELY!!! Simple words and talk I know, but I've just HAD it!!

We have a country RIGHT HERE that's falling apart and I'm SICK of sending men & women to fight WARS ad infinitum, and the continual trillions of dollars it's taking to fight them!!

Who was it that said... "What If We Started A War & Nobody Came?" Perhaps not the best quote, but how I WISH it were true!!!

[YvonneCa]

76. But ChiciB1...

...THAT'S what Kerry has been trying to do. I feel the same, so I am glad Kerry and Obama are trying to turn things around. It took YEARS...and a lot of divisiveness...to end VietNam. I think...thanks to Obama, Kerry and Joe Biden...this will end sooner. But not tomorrow, as much as I wish it would. Kerry on Afghanistan:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289629-1

[wisteria]

72. Considering that Sen. Kerry has about 20 more years experience on matters such as these

and is a highly decorated veteran along with his powerful stand against the Vietnam War, I consider him an expert with a respected opinion on this matter. I know he does not take war lightly and his view has been carefully thought out. Some people will never accept anything or consider anything but there own narrow point of view, so when they post negatively against Kerry, I just consider them to be pigheaded.

[YvonneCa]

78. Hi, wisteria...

...:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

77. Right, we should RUN AWAY from Afghanistan.

No one can stop the Taliban or Al-Qaeda but the people who live among them. To continue nation-building and the 'war on terror' will only lead to more lost American lives and wasted tax dollars. Though, weapons manufacturers will love it if we continued, and so will Al-Qaeda.

We should just leave and declare that George W. Bush lost the war - "Mission Impossible to Accomplish."

[YvonneCa]

80. You might enjoy this...

...then: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289629-1

[Swamp Rat]

82. Thanks for the link.

I watched it on CSPAN, and I am now watching it again.

Kerry makes good points, but I still think we should pull most of our troops out of the region immediately, then work our diplomatic channels, thus denying Al-Qaeda their modus operandi and desire for armed conflict.

Fighting them there has failed, and it will continue to fail. We need to try completely new strategies for de-fanging Al-Qaeda... Kerry also mentioned this. Watching him speak makes me feel sad that he was not our President for the last 4 years until Obama.

Afghanistan will not develop into a country with a centralized government until all the desperate tribes decide to do so. If we want to help them get rid of the Taliban, then we should find Mullah Mohammed Omar and his associates and kill them.

Killing the Taliban leaders and Osama Bin Laden would be the beginning of a great exit strategy for the U.S. I am confident we can find them and kill them without using a large military force - we need to employ a new strategy and concomitant tactics to achieve this objective.

I share the same concern as Kerry regarding Pakistan's nukes. This, of course, is much more complicated and difficult, and it is the job of the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) to handle this (with our help, if they'd let us).

[YvonneCa]

83. You are very welcome. I'm impressed that you watched it...

...again. :) I have to say I agree with most of what you write here, and I'd guess Kerry would agree with a lot of it, too. It is sad we missed out on having him as President.