Senator John Kerry Issues Call for Further Afghanistan "Debate"
Does General Kerry Know Something that General McChrystal Doesn't?
"I don't know where they get them from, but they keep coming and coming..."
That's a paraphrase, not verbatim, but it captures the essence of John Kerry's editorial today in the Wall Street Journal: "Testing Afghanistan Assumptions." People like John Kerry keep coming and coming.
The anti-war pacifism of the liberal Massachusetts Senator is a rehash of the Vietnam veteran's anti-war sentiments of that era. Senator Kerry is just smart enough to disguise his position in a cloak of fuzzy logic. If Kerry's "essay" were presented to an eighth grade English teacher today, he would probably get a "C" or a "D" if the editorial were to be honestly judged on the basis of its structure and reasoning. Trouble is, John Kerry is no longer in the 8th grade; he's a powerful member of Congress.
General Stanley McChyrstal was appointed to replace the previous commander by President Obama. The President took pains to assure critics and the public that McChrystal had the right anti-insurgency solution to the Taliban advances. To prove he was serious about Al Qaeda and the Taliban, President Obama ordered 17,000 new troops to Afghanistan. The Obama team hoped that the issue would remain in low profile in the public mind until a new and recent assessment by McChrystal underlined the need for an additional contingent of 40,000 troops. Without this, the NATO commander says that the effort "will likely result in failure."
Kerry's advice is for the administration to take as much time as it needs "before embarking on a new strategy." Of course, it's really not a "new strategy" since McChyrstal is a counter-insurgency military expert appointed precisely for that expertise. Moreover, the Obama administration has had more than nine months to analyze strategy in Afghanistan. Anyway, it's unlikely anyone could provide a better analysis than a General on the ground in Afghanistan. By now, McChrystal's had enough time to correlate with all his operations people. Kerry's call for further debate in Congress is a stalling tactic. Homework should already be done, Senator.
Kerry's next objective in derailing additional troops at a critical time is to create public doubt with regard to the Afghan government. Sure, the government in Afghanistan is weak and the cheating in recent elections didn't help matters a great deal. But Senator Kerry's tactical political objective ignores the "government" in place before the NATO forces rolled over the 7th century Taliban and its cohabiting Al Qaeda operatives. Obfuscation of the real problem of a potentially terrorist state isn't the answer, Senator Kerry.
Of course, Kerry's question as to whether a "smaller, well-honed counterterrorism strategy (would) work as well or better" has been asked before and dismissed by nearly everyone, liberals and conservatives alike. Your "essay" is vague on this point, General Kerry, and you didn't stick your own neck out to tell us what you think about a Flash Gordon strategy run by remote control and few people on the ground.
Next, Senator Kerry is rightly worried about the "destabilization of neighboring Pakistan" and "nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists." I wish he were similarly worried about "nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists" in Iran. Nevertheless, the implication is strong that Kerry believes a withdrawal from Afghanistan would, by the most intense flight of fatuousness, stabilize Pakistan and keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
Senator Kerry says we should "welcome the careful reassessment." I wonder if that applies to the under-resourced troops on the ground. I can only imagine being stuck out on some beleaguered outpost in the Afghan mountains and listening to another congressional debate on whether Congress can afford to send reinforcements. I can't think of anything in the world less thrilling.
Sometimes, larger numbers of troops reduce casualties and put pressure on the enemy; at least, that's what certain famous military men have believed since the dawn of time. Just increasing the numbers alone is not in itself the best strategy but, combined with other counter-insurgency measures, it might create stability while discouraging Taliban and Al Qaeda plans for the region.
Senator Kerry's final eight paragraphs seem to be inflated to meet the required length of Senatorial puffery. We need to know exactly how much we will spend in Afghanistan, the same thing Americans are dying to find out in the President's health care plans. And no liberal Senatorial essay can be complete without injecting the words "exit strategy." Trite, redundant, meaningless in terms of accomplishing an important NATO geopolitical objective. "Exit strategies" short of success will only provide the enemy with a blueprint of how they can win. Subtract 5 points for the use of meaningless cliché.
No use of cliché can outshine the "lessons of Vietnam" cliché which is also used in the Kerry Wall Street Journal editorial. According to Kerry's version of truth, playing politics instead of war means that the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese did not make use of American domestic protests to advance its position on the battlefield, something everyone agrees is not true.
Senator Kerry needs to go back and rewrite his Wall Street Journal essay. There is nothing to be accomplished by projecting the administration's self-doubt and indecision on the whole nation. Kerry knows that public approval for the Afghanistan war is tipping in favor of withdrawal. He also knows that President Obama has the support of many American conservatives and Democratic centrists who recognize the importance of denying the Taliban and Al Qaeda an operational base in an entire country. Senator Kerry's purpose in his essay is to thwart President Obama's Afghan initiative, hoping that Obama will take the political bait in the hope of a second term.
If there's ever an occasion where President Obama needs to forgo politics, and step up to the job of Commander in Chief, it is now. Even if the President decides now, it would be several months before additional troops could even begin to arrive in Afghanistan.
Source: Senator John Kerry's Editorial in today's Wall Street Journal: URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438660617984826.html
.
Published by Anthony Ventre
I have a background in traditional print media and radio news. The proliferation of online writing opportunities has changed things for me, largely for the better. News moves quickly in the information a... View profile
- Wall Street Journal to Enlist Help of CelebsPop culture is indeed a part of American culture if the Wall Street Journal has to enlist pop icons to boost readership.
- The Wall Street Journal (Purveyor of Moral Relativism?) Declares Amnesty Internati...In defending the use of torture against individuals suspected of being "terrorists who kill civilians," the Journal, like Bush & Co., indulges in the same relativism of morality they so indignantly decry.
Wall Street Journal Vs. New York Times Vs. New York Post Vs. New York Da...4 GR8 NYC NEWSPAPERS COMPARED. All the news that's fit to print and some that's not...- The Wall Street Journal - Not Your Typical NewspaperPublished by the Dow Jones in New York City.
- Who is John Kerry? Where Did Senator Kerry Go Wrong?
- The Swift Boating of John Kerry Continues
- John Kerry Says that Don Imus Shouldn't Have Been Fired
- In Defense of John Kerry
- Associated Content Page Hits Likely to Soar on Wall Street Journal Article
- The Saturday Wall Street Journal: Funniest Business Read Around
- Why The Wall Street Journal was the Best Investment I've Made
13 Comments
Post a CommentWords, a Poem:
If fewer words were spoken,if fewer words were said. If deeds, alone, were the mark of a man, not the "catch" of an eloquent pledge. If fewer words were spoken; if fewer words were said. If, for all the fake forensice there were simple words, instead. And a man stated just what he started to state, without false fuss or further ado. If you weren't a politican, I'd probably listen to you.
Connie (Corcoran) Wilson
From "Both Sides Now", 2003
Dear Moersalen: First, I wanted to say "Thank you" for recommending that more people read (and/or see) "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," a review of which I posted here on AC. The article was written over a year ago, but who knew Polanski would be arrested in Switzerland for this 1978 crime? I tried to remain objective in noting that the documentary was prejudiced towards "excusing" or "forgiving" Polanski (i.e., giving him a slap on the wrist, rather than a lengthy prison sentence), but there were some fairly interesting points brought out by the documentary that had nothing to do with your stance on law-and-order. (Read it to see.) I also enjoyed this article, especially in light of the recent "Sixty Minutes" interview with the very General (McChrystal, sp?) you cite here. I can only respond to "in or out" with the poem I wrote when I was 16, which shows you how long I've been skeptical about politics. I shall post it in another box, and put you on my favorites list. Hope you'll
Kerry is an idiot and Obama is playing politics with the war and the lives of our troops.
The Obama team was attendant at numerous briefings with Defense and State and CIA and Bush and Cheney. etc. Obama and his supporters made a large issue of it and commented on it constantly. Are you telling me now that they just began discussing and debating it last week? You're probably the only person who believes that... What we're seeing is an internal debate in the Obama administration between the pacifist anti-war coalition and people who understand the "overseas contingency operation." If what you say is true and the President can "do more than one thing at a time," why is he not inviting McChyrstal to the White House for a talk? Want me to answer that for you?
It is the concern for our troops and a lack of a real strategy and end to all of this that has people questioning whether it is wise to just send more troops into harms way. Of course, those troops that are over their now should also be taken into account, and that is why debate and conversation should begin soon. It is farfetched to accuse our president and Senator Kerry of not having the best interest of our troops in mind when they propose getting the strategy right. The assumption that generals are never wrong is something not based on history or fact.
As for the comment regarding Obama's trip for the Olympics, come on, our President can do more than one thing at a time.
The president's biggest priority is joining Oprah in trying to get the Olympics in Chicago. I mean, aren't you supposed to send underlings like Biden or Valerie Jarett for that?
Kerry's a schmuck! I think Tony's comment said it best down there! Their pet social programs are 'emergencies', but our troops in harms way; eh, hmmmmmmmm, we have to think about this. I am not saying that we need to throw more money at the military, but if these generals, who're in the middle of all this, are saying more manpower is needed, they should be taken seriously and not trivialized, but then again, its all about where one's political priorities lie!
. And, what about the Afghanistan's? This is supposed to be their war that we are assisting them in. Now we have doubts about the legitimacy of the election and how trustworthy and willing Afghan's leader is to really fight for change.
We need to get this right, and I think more discussion is in order- not only that- the situation demands it. Our troops should also know that we have the best strategy in place before we send them into Afghanistan. They are willing to risk their lives, we should make sure any lives lost are not because of a mistake.
Your assessment is wrong on both Senator Kerry and your nonchalant attitude about just sending over 40,000 more troops. Actually, General McChrystal disappoints with the time worn idea that all problems can be resolved by just sending in more troops. If you recall, Russia tried this already and it didn't work. McChrystal has not offered -in public -any reasons why using the same tactic as Russia will be a winning strategy for us when it wasn't for Russia. And, Senator Kerry's ideas on counter terrorism have not been discredited - just never examined in more detail. This could actually be the bold new move that will actually net us success in Afghanistan. Too much emphasis seems to always be placed on power in numbers and not enough emphasis placed on what energizing effect these numbers will have on our enemy. We send more troops- they recruit more troops. And, what about the Afghanistan's? This is supposed to be their war that we are assisting them in. Now we have doubts about the leg
I doubt that debate ever has or will change anyone's mind about anything ...