Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kerry's Afghanistan hearing

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 01:40 PM
Original message
Kerry's Afghanistan hearing
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 02:05 PM by karynnj
From an old TayTay post, here is a link to see it - http://foreign.senate.gov/Flashtest.html

Kerry is now giving his statement.

(Very poor summary - this is an incredible statement and it is not yet on the website)
Kerry went through the history. Spoke of moving the Taliban, but not far. Spoke of the closing window of opportunity. He praised what the troops are doing, but says they need a policy equal to them. Says this should not be a partisan issue. Can help Obama by asking tough questions - as he has. HRC promised to come to testify in Oct after decisions made. Kerry says no amount of money, troops, etc will matter unless the mission is clear. Need to know size of foot print.

Interesting article in today's WP - then Kerry spoke of questions not being asked in 65, 66 on the domino theory and other things, when the refrain was just "more troops". Need the right level of civilian resources - not just a military solution. Need to know Afghan history - decentralized. Things that work in one place, won't work elsewhere. Need to weigh our choices of what is possible.

We need to be humble about the amount of change that we can create in another country - this was true in Iraq, and still is - even truer in Afghanistan. Obama said goal is to keep it from being an Al Queda stronghold. (Mentioned that a top AQ leader in Somalia killed - even with no major force there.)

Kerry said he did not know the answer - need to ask the questions. Need to communicate clear goal and show progress.


(After Kerry, they recessed to vote)

(Also posted in DU-P) - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8657137&mesg_id=8657137
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Back in session - Lugar is speaking
Lugar speaks of legislation that he and Biden pushed - not backed by Bush - for a reconstruction office. Afghanistan is the priority that Obama identified - and whatever military, need to have the diplomatic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. self delete
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 03:00 PM by karynnj
self delete
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. First witness
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 03:01 PM by karynnj
Dr. John Nagl
President
Center for a New American Security
Washington, DC

(missed comments due to phone call)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Second Witness
Dr. Stephen Biddle
Senior Fellow for Defense Policy
Council on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC

Continuing the war or not is a close call - not obvious as proponents say and not as obviously unneeded as opponents say. Rejects the AQ haven argument. It is a problem because it destabilizes the region - esp Pakistan - with nuclear weapons. What we care of most is Pakistan, which we can not help directly. We can harm Pakistan by leaving Afghanistan in a mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Third Witness
Rory Stewart
Director
Carr Center on Human Rights Policy
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Administration policy is counter insurgency. He disputed Biddle's argument on Pakistan. He gave a parallel of being in a room with an angry cat (A) and an angry tiger (P), where we are beating the cat - because we can't beat the tiger. He speaks of lack of progress in last 7 years. Says using Iraq as model doesn't work - close and hold model doesn't work. Can't create growth in economy and growth needed.

Increase in troops will cause an unsustainable footprint - which will lead to withdrawal - shock therapy. Advises patient long term relationship - 30 years!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. Counter terrorism is one part of counter insurgency
First two witnesses said that counter insurgency is a war. Counter insurgency manual says that the rule of thumb is that 500,000 to 600,000 troops are needed. (Nagl wants 400,000 Afghans and says that would take 5 years. Nagl says that we would spend the number of troops and money.

Kerry is questioning if you can fight a counter terrorism effort, rather than counter insurgency. Nagl says counter terrorism did not work. Kerry argued (and Nagel agreed ) that AQ is NOT in Afghanistan and that Pakistan is starting to do better. Kerry agrees Pakistan is essential.

Steward argued that increase effort in Afghanistan hurts in pakistan - driving up problems there and increasing anti- American sentiment because they see it as occupation of Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thanks for doing this, Karen. I can't listen in at the moment, but
perhaps someone can post when an archive of the hearing is available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. The archive is up
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090916p.html

The link also has transcripts of Kerry's and Lugar's opening statements and the statements of the 3 experts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. You're right.
Kerry's statement is incredible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. Nice articles on the hearing
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 06:58 PM by karynnj

Most congressional hearings bring administration officials up for a grilling. Others present interest group-backed pseudo-experts to give canned analysis. Rarely do congressional hearings present eclectic analysts who address a given policy option from a first-principle perspective to an engaged group of lawmakers. Yet that’s exactly what happened Wednesday afternoon when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee began what chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) described as a series of hearings about the war in Afghanistan.

Kerry assembled three experts to scrutinize the core issues at the heart of the war and the alternatives proposed to wage it: John Nagl, the president of the Center for a New American Security, a think tank that has provided significant personnel and intellectual heft to the Obama administration; Steve Biddle, an influential security expert with the Brookings Institution who advised Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recent review of Afghanistan strategy; and Rory Stewart, head of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, who wrote a widely read travelogue of his journeys through Afghanistan. Intellectual cleavages over both strategy and basic views of the war were apparent on the panel, with Nagl and Biddle supporting a more robustly resourced war with broader aims than Stewart endorsed. But both Nagl and Biddle grappled with the harder implications of such positions, with Nagl emphasizing the primacy of competent Afghan, not U.S., security forces, and Biddle equivocating on the overall importance of Afghanistan to U.S. interests.

<snip>
t was difficult to read the impact the testimony had on the assembled senators. Most, including Kerry, posed skeptical questions to all panelists, indicating a more open debate than the congressional debate over the Iraq war, which often devolved into questioning designed to elicit politically-useful responses. Kerry, for instance, has described the struggle against al-Qaeda as a “global counterinsurgency,” yet he aimed most of his more pointed questions at Nagl, who mostly agrees with that analysis.

Kerry said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had agreed to testify before the panel next month, after President Obama made a decision on whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. Another hearing, on how to avoid failure in Afghanistan, is scheduled for Thursday morning, when the panel will hear from ret. Gen. Bantz Craddock, the former NATO commander; development expert Clare Lockhart; novelist Khaled Hosseini; and Ryan Crocker, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Pakistan.





http://washingtonindependent.com/59638/kerry-opens-vigorous-debate-on-afghanistan

Here's a short article from the American Prospect's blog


In an opening statement at a hearing this afternoon on Afghanistan strategy -- previewed ably by Spencer Ackerman -- Senator John Kerry doesn't seem too comfortable at all with the administration's current plan. At one point he left his prepared remarks behind to recall when he was a young naval officer heading to Vietnam as President Lyndon Johnson and General William Westmoreland were constantly calling for more troops to achieve their adjustments without questioning crucial strategic assumptions like the "domino theory." Kerry concluded that we have to ask those fundamental questions now, saying...

I am concerned because at the very moment when our troops and our allies troops are sacrificing more and more, our plan, our path, and our progress seem to be growing less and less clear. ... no amount of money, no rise in troop levels, and no clever metrics will matter if the mission is ill conceived.

He seems to be thinking about a strategy that has a smaller footprint on the ground, noting that he doesn't believe the U.S. should be in Afghanistan to create a central government or a carbon-copy of U.S. democracy. Further,

... In a week when U.S. commandos killed a top al-Qaeda leader in Somalia without a major troop presence, we should be asking ourselves how much counterinsurgency and nation-building are required to meet a more limited set of goals.


http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2009&base_name=john_kerrys_afghanistan_doubts
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. Matthew Yglesias titles his article John Kerry is making sense
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. Wonderful writeup Karen.
Did you hear Dick Lugar on his first round of questions express doubts and say that we are financing these wars with borrowed money from China and so forth. Wow! Just Wow!

BTW, I think that the doubts being expressed are having an impact. Repubs took to the floor of the Senate to redouble their efforts to get those troop buildups through quickly. Lieberman, McCain and Graham were up as a group and Hutchison from TX even used the old "cut and run" babble-speak to run the conservative repub line. Very interesting development.

Excellent hearing. The Chairman had an opening statement which was clear and exceptionally on point. Then, after the intro remarks from the speakers, he just went for it. Everything I needed to know from this hearing came from that first 7 minute cross. Wow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. Thank you for working so hard to bring this to us. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-21-09 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
14. Here is another good article on this hearing
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC