Reply #24: Amazing that when Kerry/Lugar/Berman passed the media pointed out it had been Biden/Lugar before [View All]

[karynnj]

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.