The Doubter - A very long profile of where Kerry stands on Afghanistan

[Mass]

I have not had the time to read this in details, but the general tone does not really surprise me. Some of the comments inside the article are not necessarily positive, insisting on the ambivalence throughout his career -- once again going on the throwing of the ribbons rather than the medals, but not having read the totality of the article yet, I will retain from any other comment. I just wonder what you think of it.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/john-kerry-wrestles-with-doubts-over-afghan-war-20101209?page=1

The Doubter
Still haunted by Vietnam, John Kerry has begun to waver in his support of the Afghanistan war. Will he take the country with him?

[karynnj]

1. God, there's not a negative stereotype the author misses here -

Much of the information is incomplete, but the bigger problem is that, if he can think of a negative, unworthy motive.

Starting with the idiotic medals/ribbons one - which he claims is because he was "moderate" - rather than the reasons given in Tour of Duty - that he had been against the idea, his medals were in Boston - and in the emotion of the event, threww the medals.

It refers to his "alliance with Fonda and appearing in rallies with her - absolutely distorting Kerry.

On Iraq, he does the same - conflating the vote with being for going to war.

He argues that on Afghanistan, Kerry's desire to be Secretary of State has kept him from diasgreeing. (Think of the context - the implication is that Kerry would back a policy he knew was not working and people were dying - to get the Secretary of State position. Ignore the immorality - it implies he is stupid. If the way to get the position was to be a solid ally of Obama, he would be SoS.) He also says that Kerry's positions change dependent on who he last spoke to - something said Of Bill Clinton, of whom it was often true.

But, the other theme is that Kerry's (he implies new) doubts could make him a leader who destroys Congressional support. He implies this is the 1971 Kerry inside him that might not allow him to be a statesman - ignoring, that though he was 27, he was a statesman at that moment. ( Cardin is quoting saying Kerry is the one who can influence the caucus - a positive comment, placed in a context that twists the meaning.)

He puts Hagel up as solidly against what we are doing in Afghanistan versus Kerry - yet Hagel is quoted as saying just that Kerry's effort to persuade Karzai was just being responsible (leading me to believe that Hirsh was working unsuccessfully to get a negative comment.)

He makes the comparison to Fullbright, but - even with some good Kerry quotes explaining the differences, he includes Kerry as one of those who endorsed the current plan - ignoring Kerry had a recommendation that is actually the SAME as the position he is said here to be moving to. You would think that the CFR speech on Afghanistan after 4 hearings in 2009 would deserve a mention - but it would mean that he PUBLICLY had as position that was significantly different than Obama's - and I think closer to Hagel's.
Here is the paragraph on that:

Here is an example:

"Asked about this, Kerry responds, “What I feel particularly is the responsibility here to get this right. I believe the adjustments we have made have significantly altered the course that we’re on there—and can help us avoid the potential of the word ‘mistake’ being attached to their endeavor.” But when I asked him directly, “Do you feel reasonably confident that no young Americans are being sent needlessly to their deaths?” he began to sound like someone who is still staying at arm’s length from the Petraeus strategy. “What’s very clear to me is that we’re not prepared financially, politically, and militarily to do a nationwide counterinsurgency effort, or even a very significant one,” he says, now echoing Biden. “So I think you have to make certain you’re not putting these folks in a less-than-achievable position.” Pressed further, he acknowledged that he is “very close” to Biden’s thinking, in terms of the need to focus on Pakistan, to reduce the U.S. “footprint,” and to accept that the al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan has been “overblown.

The bolded comments are exactly the points Kerry made in his speech a year ago. He misses that Kerry is not totally ruling out ANY COIN strategy - he is rejecting a nationwide one. That is why he is NOT "echoing" Biden - who wanted just a counter terrorism approach. As to Pakistan being the key - Kerry was saying that back in the Bush years - before Biden - and Kerry has been working with Pakistan.

This is incoherent - but it is hard to respond to an article that includes so much detail and so many quotes - many of which would sound positive - without the context that twists them.

This doesn't surprise me as the National Journal has never liked Kerry - and they were not all that positive on Kennedy.

[karynnj]

2. I decided to respond to this with a comment

Rather than go after the huge number of negative spins, I opted to obliquely attack the article by showing a small portion of what he completely ignored. ie a dozen hearings, various opeds, and a major speech, which fortunately the Boston Globe did an excellent oped on. I figured it was both more relevant to the supposed topic Kerry's position on Afghanistan and because it shows a stunning lack of serious, objective analysis given this was a major cover story.

Here's what I wrote - unfortunately, they remove the paragraph spacing.

This detailed article curiously ignored all the substantive speeches Senator Kerry gave on Afghanistan and the dozen or so oversight hearings he has had. In particular, Kerry held 4 incredible, well structured hearings in fall 2009, when Obama was considering what his path forward would be. In one the hearings, in his opening comments, Senator Lugar spoke of frustration that no administration people were willing to testify. It was right that Kerry scheduled the hearings and did the oversight that no one just reading this article were know of. (link to the hearing on Afghanistan - http://foreign.senate.gov/search/?q=Afghanistan&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fforeign.senate.gov%2Fhearings&x=24&y=7

As those hearings progressed, Kerry also wrote op-eds based on his view of what should be done. .Kerry also gave a detailed speech before the Council of Foreign Relations in November, 2009 that gave his recommendation before Obama announced the path he was taking. Here is a link to the speech as delivered - http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=8ad4653c-a11c-40c2-ab71-e01ceba481c3 The Boston Globe summarized it in their op-ed here - http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/04/in_afghanistan_kerry_keeps_us_goals_modest/

From the BG article, Kerry's position is described as:

"Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, delivered a major speech last week summarizing his own analysis of the issue and offering advice about the president’s choices. The judgments are nuanced, but no more so than the realities.

On the bottom line question - yes or no on McChrystal’s request - Kerry says no. . . .
Kerry’s analysis begins with the most important consideration: US national interests. What should Americans care about here? What matters more than other things that matter? Kerry says: Pakistan - not Afghanistan. His focal question about Afghanistan is how developments there impact Pakistan. Over the past months he has led efforts to spotlight the anomaly that allocates 30 times more American time and resources to Afghanistan when our much larger interests lie in Pakistan. Thanks to his efforts with Senator Richard Lugar, the United States has committed $7½ billion over five years to help stabilize this nuclear-armed nation at risk of becoming the “epicenter of extremism in the world.’’

Second, what are America’s vital interests in Afghanistan? Kerry answers that it is to “prevent the Taliban - with their long-standing ties to Al Qaeda - from once again providing terrorists with an unfettered Afghan safe haven.’’ Period. . . .
Third, he defines success as “the ability to empower and transfer responsibility to Afghans as rapidly as possible and achieve a sufficient level of stability to ensure that we can leave behind an Afghanistan that is not controlled by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.’’ He does not say an Afghanistan in which some Taliban are not ruling in some areas.

Fourth, he rejects “all-in’’ counterinsurgency. In its place he recommends “smart counterinsurgency,’’ . .

Now look at what you describe as his "new" position, which you describe as echoing Biden.

".Asked about this, Kerry responds, “What I feel particularly is the responsibility here to get this right. I believe the adjustments we have made have significantly altered the course that we’re on there—and can help us avoid the potential of the word ‘mistake’ being attached to their endeavor.” But when I asked him directly, “Do you feel reasonably confident that no young Americans are being sent needlessly to their deaths?” he began to sound like someone who is still staying at arm’s length from the Petraeus strategy. “What’s very clear to me is that we’re not prepared financially, politically, and militarily to do a nationwide counterinsurgency effort, or even a very significant one,” he says, now echoing Biden. “So I think you have to make certain you’re not putting these folks in a less-than-achievable position.” Pressed further, he acknowledged that he is “very close” to Biden’s thinking, in terms of the need to focus on Pakistan, to reduce the U.S. “footprint,” and to accept that the al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan has been “overblown.

What I see is Kerry is echoing ... himself - from the 2009 hearings and the CFR speech. Biden, Reed and Kerry were all not advocating for the surge supported by Gates and Clinton.As to the concern being Pakistan - one entire hearing from fall 2009 was on the impact on Pakistan.

The fact is that here, as on Iraq, it was not that Kerry made major changes in his position - it is the media's desire to classify every one as "no" or "yes" when there are millions of positions in between.

[karynnj]

3. They deleted my comment

I guess I am just inappropriate - who knew?

[Democrafty]

4. Ugh, really?

Do you have plans to post it elsewhere? DKos, perhaps?

[karynnj]

5. Daily Kos would be an interesting idea - covering both the media distortion

and showing what they deleted.

That story is perhaps as important as correcting the record on Kerry. I also intend to greatly edit it leaving just the beginning, the end and the two links - making it about a third as long and not quoting anything and resubmit it (tomorrow) in case the reason was it was too long or they didn't like quoted material.

If they delete that, I suspect that this likely means that the author fully knew what happened in 2009 - and he is doing what much of the press did in 2004. They are moving his position essentially to that of Clinton/Gates - ignoring that it clearly wasn't and he was often correctly referred to back then. Considering he validates every policy related negative theme Kerry has faced, I seriously doubt this is innocent. (if it is, he is incompetent.)

This lets them now argue that he has moved to Biden's POV, when, in fact, the Biden 2009 position was counter terrorism only - and Kerry, in committee, agreed with experts that that was not possible here - as you lose all your human intelligence, unless you are to some degree helping and protecting people. This plays into then saying Kerry changes his position as the wind blows. Suggesting that he would be bought on an issue of war and peace by the mere possibility that Obama might make him his second SoS is beyond insulting.

It is also clear that the author seems to completely misunderstand the "young Kerry". The only way to read it is that he almost suggests that "young Kerry" in an elder statesman is kind of like having Tourette Syndrome - rather than seeing young Kerry as an incredibly powerful truthful voice and one of a statesman.

[beachmom]

17. JMHO but not DailyKos. They are near 100% against the war in Aghanistan

and 150% against any nuance on the question.

They'll agree with the author, not you, Karen. DailyKos's roots are the 2004 Dean campaign, and when push comes to shove, they fall back to that position when it comes to Kerry.

[karynnj]

21. Ah - you are so right

It would be a disaster. Reading what you wrote - I can picture the kind of garbage that I would get and it would be a replay of how they positioned Kerry and Dean in 2004 on Iraq. A definite no win.

[Luftmensch067]

6. OMG!

I had gone over earlier and seen that they had put it up -- the only comment at the time. That is REPREHENSIBLE that they deleted such a well-written, thorough and thoughtful response! I am sickened.

[beachmom]

16. Your comments aren't "inappropriate". It is odd that they were deleted.

If hyperlinks were the problem, then it should have said so. But the only rule it states for comments is:

"The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the Comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate."

I would think "inappropriate" means using obscenities, threats or personally attacking the writer. That is not the case here. Basically, I don't get it. I do notice that there are barely any comments on any articles. Is it a glitch?

Very strange.

[karynnj]

19. I did politely, but clearly, challenge the integrity or scholarship of the writer

As to few comments, it could be that their culture doesn't lead to many responses. I would define inappropriate as you do - and as DU does. Here, nothing I said was untrue. Anyone seeing it would not be offended. It is certainly possible - if they even read it, for them to feel that what was said was not relevant. I suspect that it might have hit a nerve - and if so, it did exactly what I wanted. Frankly, I am PROUD it was strong enough that the writer felt it had to be deleted.

[karynnj]

7. My new comment - in case the quotes were the problem - they allow messages to post automatically

So at least it will be there until they take it down. I also more directly attack their preference for DC gossip over serious work.

Here it is:

This detailed article curiously ignores all the substantive speeches Senator Kerry gave on Afghanistan and the dozen or so oversight hearings he has held. In particular, Kerry held 4 incredible, well structured hearings in fall 2009, when Obama was considering what his path forward would be. These hearings were done with no administration witnesses, because as Senator Lugar complained in an opening statement of one, they were unwilling to come before policy was set. Here is link to the hearings on Afghanistan - http://foreign.senate.gov/search/?q=Afghanistan&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fforeign.senate.gov%2Fhearings&x=24&y=7

From Kerry's public statements and opeds, the media identified him, as well as Biden and Reed, as against the surge supported by Gates and Clinton. In November, 2009, shortly before Obama announced his decision, Kerry gave a detailed speech before the Council of Foreign Relations that gave his recommendation - including major reservations on the path that he almost certainly knew President Obama was to take. Here is a link to the speech as delivered - http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=8ad4653c-a11c-40c2-ab71-e01ceba481c3 The Boston Globe summarized it in their op-ed here - http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/04/in_afghanistan_kerry_keeps_us_goals_modest/

Now look at what you describe as his "new" position, which you describe as echoing Biden. What I see is Kerry echoing ... himself - from the 2009 hearings and the CFR speech. As to the concern being Pakistan - one entire hearing from fall 2009 was on the impact on Pakistan. The fact is that here, as on Iraq, it was not that Kerry made major changes in his position - the problem is the media's desire to classify each one as "no" or "yes" when there are millions of positions in between

It would seem that before writing a cover story for a serious periodical, the writer would have reviewed the speeches and the hearings, rather than DC gossip. Aside from having his position wrong, it is idiotic to think that Kerry's position would be driven by desire to be Secretary of State. If being supportive to Obama were the road to that, Kerry would have been nominated in early 2009. He, not Clinton, was the top Obama foreign policy surrogate in 2008 and he had far more foreign policy experience and - as has been seen - far more diplomatic skill. In addition, if that were the case, there would be no comments like Senator Cardin's saying that Kerry was the one that the caucus would listen to. Cardin is on the SFRC - unlike the writer, he knows the serious oversight that Kerry has done.

[karynnj]

10. Still there 4 hours later

(At least they are slow taking things down)

[karynnj]

12. Gone again - I guess facts are inappropriate!

I will post one more time removing the links - in case that is the problem.

[Luftmensch067]

13. You're a credit to our Senator

He never gives up either!

[karynnj]

14. Ha ha - but he works far harder

I just cut and paste the same thing in - then took out the links - and added a comment that I assumed they were the problem as "I couldn't imagine anything else was inappropriate" - says me with wide eyed innocence! (It is already not high on google - so at least for on line readers - if they bothered to look, my comment has been there much of the time. )

At this point, I am also playing because I like the idea of the Daily Kos post - as it could kill two birds with one stone. The media - and here a pretty respectable magazine and a highly regarded journalist are just not telling the truth. The second is to try to correctly say what Kerry's position is. He is not calling for getting out - but he never was an advocate of the surge.

My conjecture in what I said in the FDL post was from a very superficial look at the reviews of his book. If accurate, he wants to work against Kerry, who has great credibility on the issue in the Democratic party becoming a leader of those pushing to leave.

[Democrafty]

15. Does National Journal

provide an email address where you could inquire about their comment policies? Deleting your posts just seems so extreme....

[karynnj]

8. The author is a former senior editor of Newsweek

and an economics correspondent and a foreign editor there as well. http://www.nationaljournal.com/reporters/bio/42

I briefly read samples of the two books - and he is not a neocon, right wing or far left. He is not positive on either Clinton or Bush. It is interesting that his foreign policy book, written in 2003, doesn't mention Kerry at all (the index is there). The sample speaks of a Bush/Biden meeting in late 2001 - obviously with Biden as a source. I don't really get where he is coming from on this article.

[karynnj]

9. FireDogLake has an article on it

By Ackerman, which does question the cynicism suggesting more likely alternatives - even as he clearly feels less certain of the security needs than Kerry in Kerry's public statements. He says:

"National Journal‘s Michael Hirsch has an exceptionally insightful piece about John Kerry as a bellwether for Senate Democratic positioning on Afghanistan. It’s a story that lends itself to cynicism — Kerry must be wringing his hands because he wants to be secretary of state — and that cynicism might be appropriate. But it’s also possible that Kerry doesn’t think it’s self-evident that the war is an irredeemable disaster, and is groping for a salvageable path forward. There’s as much evidence for that proposition in Hirsch’s piece as there is for the cynical interpretation."


I responded with -

"I disagree that the National Journal is insightful. There is something very shallow when the article ignores all of the oversight hearings that Senator Kerry held - especially those in 2009, when the President was trying to find a path forward.

He also completely ignores a series of opeds Kerry wrote in that time period and a major speech given at the CFR where Kerry articulated his recommendation and spoke of misgivings on the path that Obama took. (http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=8ad4653c-a11c-40c2-ab71-e01ceba481c3 The Boston Globe oped, written at that point is here - http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/04/in_afghanistan_kerry_keeps_us_goals_modest

If you look at the comments of Kerry's that he quotes as "new" and speaks of him now echoing Biden, what Kerry is saying is identical with what Kerry said in that CFR speech over a year ago. Biden's position at that time was different in that he wanted a counter-terrorism only approach. As to the centrality of Pakistan's needs, one of the 4 2009 SFRC hearing was specifically on Pakistan.

From all MSM sources, including the NYT, Gates, McChrystal, and Clinton argued for the surge in 2009; Biden, Kerry and Reed argued against it and President Obama sided with those in favor of the surge. Kerry's statement on Obama's plan was not a ringing endorsement of Obama's decision. Kerry has publicly cautioned the Obama administration on Afghanistan starting with comments he made at the confirmation of Hillary Clinton. Most recently, at a the hearing last July with Richard Holbrooke, both Holbrooke and Kerry expressed very strong concerns about Marjah and Kandahar.

It would seem that before writing a cover story for a serious periodical, the writer would have reviewed the speeches and the hearings, rather than DC gossip. Aside from having his position wrong, it is idiotic to think that Kerry's position would be driven by desire to be Secretary of State. If being supportive to Obama were the road to that, Kerry would have been nominated in early 2009. He, not Clinton, was the top Obama foreign policy surrogate in 2008 and he had far more foreign policy experience and - as has been seen - far more diplomatic skill. In addition, if that were the case, there would be no comments like Senator Cardin's saying that Kerry was the one that the caucus would listen to. Cardin is on the SFRC - unlike the writer, he knows the serious oversight that Kerry has done.

Throw in that Hirsh repeats long debunked smears - like Kerry being in an "alliance with Jane Fonda" and implying that Kerry's willingness to speak out in 1971 was almost a Tourette Syndrome part of Kerry that interferes with him being a statesman. That - in conjunction with the Cardin comment, make it seem like Hirsh's goal is to pre-emptively question Kerry's motivations and his character because - as Cardin said - Kerry is someone who many in the Democratic caucus would listen to if he were to oppose further efforts in Afghanistan.

Could this be an effort by someone who is an advocate of nation building in Afghanistan?"


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last two paragraphs are my best (though NOT at all strong) guess as where Hirsh is coming from. (From reading 2 customer reviews of one of his books.)

[Luftmensch067]

11. Excellent responses!

Thank you so much for doing this! 90 percent of the time, NO ONE calls these writers on their BS and it's such a breath of fresh air to see such intelligent, reasonable analyses.

[beachmom]

18. Okay, I read the whole article. Here are my thoughts.

John Kerry is a politician, so to pretend that there aren't political implications for his position is to be naive. However, a potential SoS position is only the tip of the iceberg. How about being responsible for taking down President Obama? I don't think John Kerry wants to do that unless under EXTREMELY extenuating circumstances, which the current situation, although bad, is not that horrible. I think by now, John Kerry has to know he can't count on Obama for any appointment and to base his entire stance on a WAR, no less, on a potential job in the future would be downright foolish. As nice as it would be to be SoS, it ain't POTUS. I don't want to re-litigate but there WAS a political consideration involved with the IWR vote, but the stakes were MUCH higher then than they are now.

I actually wasn't that annoyed by the article in terms of the little jabs it hits Kerry with. What annoys me more is all this Vietnam talk. I just don't see Afghanistan equaling Vietnam, just as much as Iraq was never going to be Bush's World War Two. I'm not saying history isn't important -- it is. But sometimes it blinds people to what is CURRENTLY happening.

Personally, I think we need to get out of Afghanistan ASAP, but remain engaged in the region given the danger it poses (particularly Pakistan). Frankly, we can't afford the war financially, and the national security threat requires more intelligence and police work than military engagements. But OTOH, I'm not sure I feel comfortable having Sen. Kerry undercut the President. I honestly think that is what is holding the good Senator back. Not exactly politics and certainly not friendship. But the President is dealing with so many problems, and it would be a complete disaster for this country not to re-elect him in 2012. Think about energy policy, economic policy, debt policy and so on. The GOP is not a serious party and could take this country down for which we would not recover. Is Afghanistan WORTH taking Barack Obama down? Nope. If there is a more subtle way to change things and not hurt the POTUS, then that is the best path forward. I think that is what Sen. Kerry is doing. He knows that his words have weight WAY beyond Afghanistan, so he is not going to make some big move without thinking through EVERY consequence.

Finally, it is wrong that the National Journal has deleted Karen's comments. Dissent should be welcome.

Another point: People act like what Fulbright did with respect to Johnson was "normal" and how things should work. Well, it did lead to ending Vietnam while contributing to the decimation of the Democratic party and a liberal tradition in this country (the Civil Rights Act was the other cause to this political restructuring). It may well have been worth it, but there WAS a downside to it.

[karynnj]

20. I completely agree with what you say on not wanting to undermine Obama

I also suspect that he may - with good reason - feel that keeping his objects to the level they are, allows him to remain in the loop and to work to influence Obama to a better position. He has to see that Obama did not follow his recommendations on either Afghanistan or Honduras.