Boston Globe - Kerry will have hearings that could lead to 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.

[babylonsister]

1. Rec'd fwiw. Yay, Senator Kerry! We need to get out imo. I know

Kerry is a well respected player; I'm so glad he's contributing to this eventuality.

[karynnj]

2. I am do, but recognize how difficult it will likely be

He did ask many tough questions of Holbrooke in a hearing last summer after Marjah. His 2009 hearings were incredible in their focus, design and range of witnesses - especially as the administration refused to testify before they chose a policy.

It will likely be hard holding hearing that very well might criticize the policy of a President he likes and supports. It also could mean that he will not be seen as an Obama emissary unless Obama recognizes that this is Kerry's job as chair of SFRC. Kerry needs to listen to his conscience.

[babylonsister]

5. Another possible scenario is that Kerry is doing

Obama's bidding indirectly, i.e., they both agree and Kerry is promoting their view points. That's my wish anyway.

[karynnj]

7. Interesting

It could be that public hearings could allow a major change. I think public support is already lower because it is perceived not to be working and because it is costly both in lives and money - so I am not sure why Obama could not make a change on its own.

(Kerry also pushed back in last week's Iraq hearing arguing that the intended "footprint" has very large.)

[DCBob]

10. I think you are right about that..

Kerry has been playing that role quite a bit of late.

[ClassWarrior]

3. Former Dem Prez candidate. Drawdown in Afghanistan. Unrecs??!

:shrug:

NGU.

[babylonsister]

4. DU/bizarre at times.

Makes me wonder who is here. :shrug:

[karynnj]

6. I am not surprised as there could be concern that raising more questions

about Afghanistan could be seen as possibly not good for Obama. But, it is Kerry's job to provide oversight and he would be negligent if he did not have the type of hearings that he has had since he took over the committee.

It really is ironic that Kerry may have to be one speaking out for change for the second time in his life - knowing how much doing so cost the first time. I went to Kerry's dissent speech in 2006 on the 35th anniversary of his 1971 speech, the intensity in his statement that he had to say what he thought right was obvious.

The hearings can be useful to Obama as they could address various issues and alternatives. Whether Afghanistan helps or hurts Obama will not be determined by whether there are hearings or not, but whether Americans care greatly one way or another about whatever policy Obama continues.

[babylonsister]

8. I'm with the good Senator; questions need to be asked.

This has gone on long enough imo; I for one am sick of wars and bloodshed, especially when I can see no end result or even an end date. So Senator Kerry will have my attention; thanks for informing us.

[politicasista]

13. Yep.

They have been going off over everything and everyone for sabotaging the POTUS.

Thanks for posting (sorry about the mess elsewhere) Wishing the Senator the very best on the hearings (that is a positive comment).

[karynnj]

9. To be fair, the first step is hearings

The real question is whether President Obama , who is the person who really holds moist of the power on this, will listen this time to the hawks or do those who were expressing cautions - or saying we need to have at most a limited goal here. It is clear that the McChrystal plan did not work as stated - and it seems that McChrystal himself never saw it working in the timeframe it was sold for. (The clue being he wanted twice the surge and spoke in terms of decades, not years.

Hearings could enable Obama to step back. Otherwise, he runs the risk of a Republican running to the antiwar side of him. (Think someone like Romney or Huckabee (in fact most Republicans mentioned are not on record supporting continued war) with no real record.)

[wisteria]

11. If Pres. Obama has not called meetings to readdress the progress or lack there of,

then these meetings will serve as a valuable tool and perhaps a push to reexamine our level of involvement. These types of meetings are very engaging, and valuable information is gained, but they receive very little press coverage meaning that most Americans will never hear what was discussed.

[politicasista]

12. Some (not all) of the President's ardent supporters won't appreciate this

because they don't want anything to be seen as undermining Obama, but the hearings do need to happen.

Maybe they are unhappy about what he said on MTP this morning? :shrug:

Plus, they don't appreciate (probably never will) what he brings to the Obama Administration as an independent voice/surrogate.

[politicasista]

14. Too late to edit the snark, but kick n/t

:kick: :patriot:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.