Statement By Chairman Kerry On Leaked Documents On Afghanistan And Pakistan

[Luftmensch067]

From last night:

However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America's policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent.

[Inuca]

1. Just heard a few minutes of MOrning joe

commenting on this. They quotes the last sentence ("calibrations") and not the rest, which prompted Scarborough to make a snarky comment about Westmoreland. OTOH somebody else (forgot who, I was paying only marginal attention) said that Kerry may be reaching a tipping point. There was also a reference to the "to die for a mistake" quote. FYI.

[YvonneCa]

12. That quote also came up...

...yesterday on Fox News Sunday, without mentioning JK by name. I don't remember who said it...but it sounds like a pattern to me.

P.S. Sorry about the Fox thing... :7 "...keep your enemies close..."

[Inuca]

13. I also try to watch Fox News Sunday

as part of the Sunday morning gaggle, at least the first part which is the least offensive and can have interviews worth watching. For the 2nd hour I switch to CBS. Chris Wallace could be relatively decent if he were working for somebody else (he got quite a lot worse recently, actually...). I understand that there was an interesting exchange among Wallace, Howard Dean and the Newt yesterday, but I must confess I fell asleep while watching and I missed it :-).

[Luftmensch067]

2. Interesting post from an interesting source

John Kerry, Wikileaks Bellweather?

Mark Leon Goldberg - July 25, 2010 - 10:54 pm

The reactions to the massive Wikileaks document dump will be fascinating to view during the next few days. So far, the administration's response is to condemn the leaks while also noting that most of the revealed documents stem from the Bush era. Specifically, the White House advised reporters:

"The period of time covered in these documents (January 2004-December 2009) is before the President announced his new strategy. Some of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why the President ordered a three month policy review and a change in strategy."

One person to watch these next few days is John Kerry, the influential chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry was initially supportive of the counter-insurgency strategy Obama laid out in his West Point speech nearly one year ago. But in recent weeks, Kerry has been cautiously expressing some doubts.

Goldberg links to AP reporting about the SFRC hearing with Holbrooke, which describes Chairman Kerry's opening remarks at that hearing as somber in tone, while noting that he indicated on that occasion that now was not the time to give up on Afghanistan. ("'Some suggest this is a lost cause," he said. "But grim as the statistics are, heartbreaking as every death is, this is not the time to give up.'")

More of the post here:
http://www.undispatch.com/node/10078

[TayTay]

3. The hearing tomorrow could not come at a better time

I was fascinated before the Wikil leaks docs came out with how Kerry would stage this hearing. I am doubly so now.

[Inuca]

14. I was thinking of you and

"your" hearing :-). "Better time" is a relative thing though... Interesting time for sure... I think it is also a difficult time for Kerry.

[beachmom]

4. Excellent statement. And makes me curious what he will say in hearings as well.

BTW, nothing surprised me in those documents. I knew we couldn't trust the ISI and that things are bad on the ground.

[TayTay]

6. There really isn't that much new in the wikileaks docs

Ah, the ISI has had questionable loyalties since, ah, forever. (See bombing, India, et al)

Sometimes mundane things offer a trigger to greater things. The thing about this leak might turn out to be not what it actually contains, but what it allows people to talk about it.

[ProSense]

7. That sounds about right

"The thing about this leak might turn out to be not what it actually contains, but what it allows people to talk about it."

I'm just fascinated that they went ahead with it. :)

[ProSense]

5. Excellent statement.

Posted here

[MH1]

8. Good, careful statement BUT

a key word is "illegally".

And I find it impossible to believe that it's all just a-ok and doesn't put troops at risk for these documents to have been released.

Spewing classified information to the press is no better than selling it to a foreign government, in my opinion. (I am thinking of whoever sent it to Wikileaks, not the Wikileaks guy though. Whoever had access to classified information and basically sold out the troops.)

The discussion on the post at the top of 'Greatest' makes me sick. Posters ganging up on a guy who is rightfully saying this can put the troops in danger. Makes 'liberals' look as anti-military as anything I've ever seen. Anyone else feel this way?

[MBS]

9. did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8818178

[TayTay]

11. playing god is wrong

It is very worrying that these docs were released. There are severe questions of national security and responsibility that come up in considering this. Our friends at VoteVets think so as well.

Whoever leaked these had top level security clearance. That person also swore an oath to preserve and protect. Whatever I think politically of the contents of the documents themselves, the act of arbitrarily disclosing them was wrong.

We don't get to play God at will. The individual who leaked these was extremely irresponsible. I would also have to condemn the act of leaking classified information without damn good reasons. (And with knowledge aforethought that the act of playing God and leaking classified info could land you in federal prison for the rest of your life.)

There are 2 separate things going on here. One is the info in those docs, which is not really new information. The second is whether and when an act of conscience takes precedence over the need to preserve the chain of command and security. (Ah, didn't some young Lt in the Navy face that dilemma years ago during Vietnam? I seem to remember reading about a moral dilemma he had too about opposing policies and stuff. I don't think he resolved it by being an active-duty informer but waited until he was out of the service all together to act more honorably.)

[Inuca]

15. Just a comment about "top level security clearance"

Remember the report, last week I think it was, about the cancerous growth of intelligence after 9/11. I remember seeing/hearing somewhere the number of people that currently have top security clearance, and if I remember correctly it was an absolutely STAGGERING number, in the high hundreds of thousands.

[MH1]

22. Thanks Tay

I am beginning to feel very out of step with DU.

His name is Bradley Manning, 22 year old intelligence analyst. He was already locked up on a long rap sheet for releasing classified information. The article I saw said on those charges (not including anything new from this round), he could do 52 years in Leavenworth.

I have trouble feeling sorry for him but I do think he was grossly misled and too young to realize how f****** stupid and wrong was what he was doing.

Meanwhile, it may be that a lot of what's in the documents is old news, but I can't help but put myself in the shoes of those I know in Afghanistan, and my nephew who is headed there later this year. I bet they wish they had that kid alone in a dark alley for a little bit. As it is I bet the kid is not in general population where he is currently locked up, and I bet he's smart enough to be glad for that. Because there is undoubtedly info in there that the Taliban - and maybe other enemies of the US - are very happy to have, that will make it easier to find and harm our troops. (Does anyone think those guys are seriously saying, "ah sheesh we don't care, there's nothing new there"? Get real ...)

I totally agree with what you pointed out about Kerry. He's in a tough spot with this because his patriotism and common sense say one thing, but it seems one gets kicked out of the 'liberal' wing of the party if one actually thinks we ought to support the troops and keep classified information, you know, like CLASSIFIED. As in not giving it to the enemy. And not publicizing stuff that undermines our allies as well. Oh and wanting America to succeed in Afghanistan. Yeah that last practically makes one a freeper around here.

:banghead:

[MBS]

23. MH, you're not alone

Everything about this situation -- and the possible solutions -- is complex. (Granted, it would have been less complex if W and friends had done their job properly after 9/11, and dealt with Bin Laden swiftly in Tora Bora, but that's another discussion) JK so often gets lambasted for actually thinking about all sides of the issue. But that's a GOOD thing: that's what adults do when faced with a situation as thorny as this. I'm so glad that JK is head of SFRC.

He really is in a tough spot, but (no matter what the @$ Globe implies) that's not his fault; it's the fault of the difficult situation, and of our apparent need to see everything in black and white (a typical social symptom of fear, IMHO, is to view the world in black and white terms.. ). Basically, black and white thinking childish. Our country has had this disease since 1980, and I for one am TOTALLY sick of it. Come on, US citizens, time to snap out of it. Time to wake up from our long nap, grow up, take the time to inform ourselves about the issues, start thinking like adults and get to work. And time to support those few politicians who have the guts to do the same.

[Inuca]

16. Fresh off the presses

Review of WikiLeaks docs sees no smoking gun
Pentagon still reviewing records, but so far finds no threat to U.S. security http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/ Isikoff

[ProSense]

10. OT, but

important to note, Kerry on the Khmer-related sentencing

[MBS]

17. Today's (7-27) coverage on Kerry and impact of leaks

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/07/27/kerry_under_pressure_as_leak_energizes_war_critics/

by Matt Viser . sigh.
headline:
Kerry under pressure as leak energizes war critics
Key role on policy in for new scrutiny

there seems to be a video at the url, too, but I can't make it work on my computer. .

needless to say, the blog comments are the usual dreck, and, predictably, bring up the boat taxes issue, too. Sigh.

[Luftmensch067]

18. Open season on prominent Dems

Is there an election coming up or something?

[Blaukraut]

19. This is actually an interesting article by Viser (imagine that!)

It correctly describes the Senator's efforts in shaping US-
Pakistan relationship and his dilemma now. How can he affect a change in policy as SFRC chair without damage to the Obama administration? It's a hugely complex issue and will be fascinating to follow. These leaks came at an interesting time, that's for sure.

Ok, Viser slanted the article a little, but only the most partisan readers would see it as damaging to Senator Kerry. Just look at the one gratuitous mention of the lesser senator: He had no comment. That alone speaks volumes.

I'd rather read something like this article than the yacht business. (incidentally, the yacht will be 'discussed' on MSNBC shortly)

[MBS]

20. I agree that this was a decent treatment of what you correctly describe as

a "hugely complex issue" which will be "fascinating to follow." There must be lots of stuff going on behind the scenes, I'd guess. .

[karynnj]

24. Amazing that when Kerry/Lugar/Berman passed the media pointed out it had been Biden/Lugar before

It is true that Kerry likely was the key person arguing for non-military aid to gain the hearts and minds in Pakistan. It is amazing how this article is written ignoring that as far back as Hillary's confirmation, Kerry was issuing cautions on Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is also not clear to me that the idea of giving money to Pakistan - and INSURING it when to development projects that would help people is not the best hope we have.

It is pretty clear that Pakistan is the key to that area. I have not read the leaks - as I am not home - but it was clear even before 911 that Pakistan was allied with the Taliban. The decision to have Pakistan as our key ally here was Bush's - in 2001/2002. The real question might be whether Pakistan is still aiding the Afghan Taliban even as it fights the Pakistani Taliban.

As to the strategy on the war itself, Kerry PUBLICLY gave his advice before Obama made his decision. It was VERY clear that Obama sided with HRC and Gates and chose McChrystal's plan - with fewer troops. (Luckily, McChrystal in RS said it would not work with any number of troops.) Kerry's proposal was rejected.

I agree with your comment on the Globe (and others) wanting everything black/white - with no grey. However, even in their coverage Kerry's "support" was with weak and he restated the same concerns of not enough Afghan security and "good enough governance". It was their insistence in defining everyone either "for" or "against". I notice that with the problems in Marjah, they completely failed to point out that the problems were exactly what the SFRC hearings and Kerry predicted would likely be the problem. When Obama announced his plan, Kerry said he would continue to review results - and he did.

The only paragraph that I am impressed with here as insightful is:
"Kerry has walked a political tightrope, avoiding criticism of the Obama administration directly on the Afghan war policy while trying to influence strategy."

I think this is true, but they ignore the WORDS that Kerry dis say - paying attention only to the tone and manner. Excepting people who wanted out and said so then and a few like Feingold, who demanded a time line, Kerry was one of those opposing the REPUBLICAN led push for Obama to immediately give McChrystal 40,000 troops. (They forget the flack that he and Biden took then when he, Reed and Biden were arguing for alternatives.) Once Obama made his decision - after hearing Kerry and others out, it is true that Kerry opted to give Obama's plan a chance (even as he still listed his concerns). The alternative would have been to undercut Obama - on something that at that point he would not have changed course on.

Some here (Beachmom ?) argued at the time that Kerry being one Obama's inner circle could lead to something like this.

[MBS]

21. JK article in "The Hill" (7-27)(-intro to SFRC panel)

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/111163-options-for-reconciliation-in-afghanistan-sen-john-kerry

some excerpts. .

. .. There are a lot of questions, which is entirely appropriate. Today’s hearing is really to try and focus on the issue of reconciliation and see what role that might play in achieving a political solution in the end. And I think we have a very thoughtful panel to consider those issues. . .
. . .I want to say a couple of words about the leaked documents on Afghanistan and Pakistan yesterday. I think it is important to not overhype or get excessively excited about the meaning of those documents. Certainly to those of us that lived through the Pentagon papers and a different period, there is no relationship whatsoever to that event or to those documents. In fact, these documents in many cases reflect a very different pattern of involvement by the U.S. government from that period of time.

For all of us, the release of any classified information—I think this needs to be stated—is unacceptable. It breaks the law. And equally important, it compromises the efforts of our troops in the field and has the potential of putting people in harm’s way.

These documents appear to be primarily raw intelligence reports from the field. And as such, anybody who has dealt with these reports knows that some are completely dismissible, some of them are completely unreliable, and some of them are very reliable. But raw intelligence needs to be processed properly, generally by people who have a context in which to put it. And so I think people need to be very careful in evaluating what they do read there.

I also want to emphasize that the events covered in these documents occurred before last December, when the President announced a new Afghanistan strategy clearly designed to address some of the very issues that are raised by these documents. . ..
. . . I will make a final comment before we get back to our panel. I really believe that, in the amount of space we are trying to operate in Afghanistan and the numbers of troops we have allied together, there are just some inherent limits that the Taliban have come to understand better perhaps than others. Clearly, we have to operate within this political reality. I can’t say it enough times: I believe that Pakistan is more crucial to the outcome than what happens in Afghanistan itself in many cases. And I think that remains true today.