Kerry calls for Limiting Expectations in Afghanistan

[beachmom]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — Calling for a broad, patient war strategy, John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Monday that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the American military commander in Afghanistan, was trying to do too much in a relatively short time.

Senator Kerry, who traveled recently to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said his conversations with General McChrystal covered the importance of a “smart counterinsurgency” approach.

“But I believe his current plan reaches too far, too fast,” Mr. Kerry said at a gathering here of the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent research organization.

While Mr. Kerry did not mention numbers for the troop strength he would like to see in Afghanistan, he seemed to differ, at least implicitly, with General McChrystal, who is believed to be seeking up to 40,000 additional American troops. There are about 68,000 United States troops there now.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/world/asia/27kerry.html?hp

[mike_c]

1. I can't tell you how glad I am that Kerry is not president....

Broad, patient war strategy my ass!

Carrying water for war criminals:

Mr. Kerry said the United States was right to begin a military campaign in Afghanistan because the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were spawned there. And the United States is right to persist there now, he said, despite what he called the “gross mishandling” of the effort under the Bush administration.

U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW!

[beachmom]

4. So I guess you hate that Obama is President as well? Because

Obama is NOT going to get out of Afghanistan, I guarantee you.

[mike_c]

5. life is more complicated than that, I'm afraid....

No, I don't "hate that Obama is president" although it's no secret that I voted for someone else. I do despise his wars however, and the U.S.'s continued involvement in them. I don't care what letter he has after his name-- the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan are criminal and immoral, no matter who calls the shots.

[beachmom]

6. Were the attacks of 9/11 criminal? And was the Taliban government in Afghanistan

criminal for providing safe haven to al Qaeda's leadership and training camps?

[Flaneur]

9. Al Qaeda should have been the target of a policing effort.

It isn't a country, but a criminal network. Invading Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda was stupid, as well as immoral.

Now, eight years after we occupied the country, why are we there? Al Qaeda isn't there, and the Taliban may not be nice guys, but they're hardly a threat to the US.

Yes, the 9/11 attacks were criminal. They should have been treated as crimes, not as acts of war. The Taliban offered to give up Al Qaeda, but we weren't interested. We had to get our war on.

[beachmom]

11. Al Qaeda was the Taliban's patron. The Taliban largely controlled

Afghanistan in 2001. Because the attack was planned and ordered from Afghanistan for which the Taliban government protected them, and for which they refused to hand over the al Qaeda leadership prior to our invasion, it was a just war.

I guess agree to disagree.

[EFerrari]

13. No, Al Qaida was not the Taliban's patron. That would be Pakistani intelligence.

The Taliban no more controlled every square foot of Afghanistan than we do now.

And since when is refusal to extradite a criminal grounds for war? Maybe Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia should invade us for harboring terrorists that have killed their citizens.

[beachmom]

14. The fact that the ISI backed the Taliban does not change the fact

that they gave safe haven to al Qaeda!!! And I believe our policy has been called "Af/Pak" for a reason. Everyone knows damned well that our policy in regards to Pakistan is just important to stabilizing Afghanistan.

And for you to suggest that it would have been perfectly fine for a country not to extradite al Qaeda, who murdered 3000 Americans because of disputes between America and Latin America is absurd.

Holy crap, I really think I have met the "Blame America First" crowd. I thought the Right just made them up, but here you are.

[EFerrari]

38. So we're off into right wing epithets, are we?

And contrary to your accusation, I offered no opinion on whether the Taliban should or should not have extradited members of al Qaida to this country. As a sovereign nation they had legal rights which were not taken into consideration when George Fucking Bush started bombing the women and children of Afghanistan. That's not my preference, that's just a fact.

And, for the record, how do you know that the Taliban had any choice in whether bin Laden was there or not? During the war against the Russians, the AFghan fighters regularly asked the US to get rid of bin Laden because he sucked as a freedom fighter, let alone as a commander. It's hard to imagine that the Taliban were so enamored of bin Laden that they decided to go to war over him. It's more likely that they were between an ISI rock and a USA hard place.

So you see, I'm not the "Blame America first" crowd. I'm a card carrying member of the "Know the facts first" crowd. You might want to check them out sometime.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

55. That hinges on whether or not you feel 9-11 was an act of war

The United States chose to respond to 9-11 as if it were an act of war, which you obviously feel it wasn't.

Also, the Taliban had plenty of choice as to whether or not bin Laden was there. You're telling me they could defeat the Soviet army but not bin Laden's rag tag group?

[mike_c]

15. LOL-- the United States was the Taliban's patron....

We created the taliban, back during the Reagan years.

[karynnj]

18. No - we funded the Mujhadim - which AQ has roots in

ISI helped the Taliban, fanatical religious Pastuns into power.

[mike_c]

23. we'll, they're one and the same, so you can THINK they're different entities...

...if that makes you comfortable, but they're not. In bin Laden's own words:

The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.

The revisionist history that al-Qaeda sprung into existence in 1988 to attack American targets is a fiction that Americans encourage because it hides their essential responsibility for creating the mujahedeen and Osama bin Laden's route to it's leadership. As for Pakistan, the ISI was also our instrument for funding the mujahedeen, arming and supplying them, etc. Again, it's a bit revisionist to suggest that the ISI simply started doing that on their own in the late 80s.

[EFerrari]

40. Mike, you have to see this vid of Lawrence Wright on BookTV

http://www.booktv.org/Watch/7430/After+Words+Lawrence+Wright+author+of+quotThe+Looming+Tower+AlQaeda+and+the+Road+to+911quot+interviewed+by+James++++Zogby.aspx

He outs bin Laden as an incompetent warrior but good PR man that the Afghans wanted to ditch. Interviewed by James Zogby.

[EFerrari]

39. But mike is right at bottom. The Taliban, both Afghan and Pakistani,

came out of the refugee camps in Pakistan that we made necessary through our proxy war.

[karynnj]

44. That is true - and the overall chaos resulting from that helped them

I made the mistake of thinking of that as the USSR vs the mujaheddin, losing sight of fact that though we were not"seen", it was - as you say - a proxy war. One thing that this result shows is that while it was easy to exit a proxy war once we accomplished what we wanted by simply defunding it, leaving a mess can create a more dangerous situation. Here, both AQ and the Taliban.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

57. That "we" made necessary or Russia did?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

56. I wouldn't say we "created" them. The Mujahideen were fighting the Russians from the very start.

[EFerrari]

12. Yes. And they should have been prosecuted as crimes. n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

58. What sort of crimes? Like shoplifting?

[mike_c]

17. that's not relevant to the actions of Afghanistan prior to 9/11....

Look, I don't want to argue until we're both blue in the face, but Afghanistan was not responsible for what a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians did on 9/11 just because they had, at one time, trained there. They did not train for the 9/11 attacks there, per se-- they did that at American flight schools. Should we bomb those?

Are we responsible for the terrorism committed by right wing death squads whose leadership trained in the U.S.? The U.S. trains more terrorists than ever trained in Afghanistan.

The criminals were the ones who committed the crime, not the people whose country they spent time in previously. The conspirators were guilty of conspiracy, but I'll bet you won't find many Afghans among them. And no one is guilty of crimes at all until they've been committed, so the hijackers could "train" as long as they want-- doing so is not criminal.

Finally, the Afghans obeyed their own laws and customs, which demand hospitality for guests, even guests with prices on their heads-- maybe ESPECIALLY guests with infidel prices on their heads. The U.S. made no attempt to figure that out, even after the taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to a third party for investigations. The war against Afghanistan is one part lynch mob and one part military imperialism. And it's all illegal and immoral.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

59. Sorry, but...

if you provide safe haven for a terrorist organization, allow it to raise money, bring in recruits, and train those recruits, you ARE responsible for the end result.

[karynnj]

16. Than why would you not "hate" it if Kerry were President

The fact is had he won, we would have been out of Iraq for at least a few years and a policy like the one he described would have been easier started 4 years ago when the Taliban was weaker and more people were pro-American.

The fact is that no viable candidate in 2004 or 2008 would have gotten us out earlier. The fact is that leaving precipitously would leave Afghanistan in chaos.

[mike_c]

19. you're welcome to believe that...

...but I don't agree. Kerry ran on a platform that specifically endorsed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I see no reason to believe he would not have sought a broader war in 2004-- he's still calling for one today.

[karynnj]

28. Not true "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"

It was not a "war of last resort" - do you know what that means to a Catholic familiar, as Kerry was with the works of St Augustine. He was saying it was a an unjust war. He also listed several things Bush said he would do first that he didn't. You can argue his vote was wrong - trusting Bush to do what he promised was wrong. The fact is Kerry spoke out before the war started saying "not to rush to war".

As to what he would have done in Iraq - he said what he would and it started with a regional conference - Note this is Kucinich's first proposed action in Afghanistan - but the dynamics with Iraq's neighbors and the Sunni/Shite divide it made more sense. In the debates, Kerry brought up the point that there should be no permanent bases and raised the issue of needing to reduce the American face. He was among the first who raised the fear of looking like occupiers.

On Afghanistan, he said would have gone in then when the Taliban was weaker and done what he has spoken of for there and elsewhere - he would have done what was needed to repair the infrastructure and help the government provide some level of safety. He spoke of this extensively in 2006.

[wisteria]

21. So you are glad Kerry isn't president because............

If President Obama has no intentions of just pulling out, because we are still fighting those that attacked us on 9/11 and Kerry says that would be the wrong strategy, then why are you so glad that Kerry isn't president? Oh wait, that other candidate that you voted for wasn't by chance HRC?

[mike_c]

24. no, it wasn't....

I opposed HRC in the last election for the same reason. She was not on the ballot in any event.

Look, during his campaign Kerry endorsed the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan REPEATEDLY. His campaign excluded all anti-war sentiment from the democratic convention. He spoke over and over about the need to fight the wars better than Bush and his republican administration. He talked about the importance of winning them-- something that no one, not even Kerry, has ever tried to define. He earned his seat at the chamber of commerce for war. He is STILL talking about how right and necessary those wars are, even today. He's still questioning the strategy, and he's still under the delusion that they're "winnable" if they're just conducted differently. It's nothing more than delusional political opportunism, so yes, I'm glad he got no closer to the oval office.

[wisteria]

27. There is nothing opportunistic about Senator Kerry's decisions.

Nore is there anything political in these decisions either. He has called for changing stragegies because that is what is needed.It would have benefited us in Iraq and it may benefit us in Afghanistan.
I am sorry Kerry can not be anti-war for you when he feels we need to stabilies Afghanistan in order to assist Pakistan further. He has over 20 years of experience in these matters, and he does not play politics with our soldiers lives. I trust he knows what he is doing.

[karynnj]

29. How old are you?

Kerry HAD to control the message of his campaign. The truth is that Kerry had only the convention and the debates to speak without a negative military filter. The point of the convention was to introduce Kerry and to get his message out. Tell me how a bunch of antiwar protesters getting coverage would have helped? Are you old enough to remember 1968? I seriously think there would have been no way for Nixon to have won except for that convention.

As to Kerry endorsing the war, he said "wrong war ..." at least thousands of times. The fact was we were in the war. What Kerry spoke of was getting Iraq to a point that they were stable and then leaving. Did you hear him repeatedly speak of a regional summit? He did it multiple times a day.

He spoke of Afghanistan being necessary he has not said Iraq was.

But, saying you are glad he got no closer, means you are ok with Bush winning - that worked out well.

[politicasista]

31. It does not matter. People think that

Kerry is a warmonger for not staying true to his old 71 roots.

When posters like above and others see the name "Kerry" in a thread, they swarm like wasps. It's never like this with other Democrats, liberals or progressives. No matter what he says or does, it's not good going to be good enough.

Not to be gloomy or anything, but that's the way it is.

[wisteria]

32. There are only a few of them who fail to realize that each situation is unique and requires

different strategies and commitments. Sometimes it is better to stop trying to convince someone like this.

[politicasista]

34. True

It sounds like this may be a lost cause (at least for the poster above).

The media is working overtime to spin this as Obama's War, when he inherited the mess in Afghanistan. Sure, he will be responsible (as to Kerry?) for what goes on there since it will be his decision as to what to do, but the pathetic MSM is still letting Bush off the hook when he was the one that took us to Afghanistan and Iraq.

[karynnj]

33. Actually not much swarming today

The fact is the old anti-war movement in the 1960s/1970s, thought Kerry not pacifist enough and many leaders resented that Kerry could get in to see Congressmen and other leaders. Even before the SFRC, Kerry in the question & answer part spoke of being willing to return to service if the US needed defending. He never was the near hippy the right wants to picture him as at that point. He actually was the same person motivated by the same things in Vietnam, as in the protest movement - and now.

He really is trying to craft a policy that has the potential to work to accomplish the goals.

[politicasista]

35. Makes sense.

He just isn't screaming "Out Now" or that the GOP wants your kids to die in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, which will get more play, but probably be non-helpful in the long run.

[karynnj]

36. I suspect that other than the people on the extreme,

the topic of what to do is really really tough to figure out. There really are no good obvious options and I suspect that many are like me - seeing downsides on everything. I didn't like the intensive role of drones in the counter terrorism option and I didn't like the idea of anything that got us more committed with no exit strategy.

I thought fp captured part of what I heard:

We cannot and we should not undertake a manpower-intensive counterinsurgency operation on a national scale in Afghanistan," said Kerry, D-MA, sounding a lot like his Senate cohort Carl Levin, D-MI, who has also advocated for a strategy centered around building up Afghan forces, not adding U.S. combat soldiers.

"I am convinced, from my conversations with General Stanley McChrystal ... he understands the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area," Kerry went on, "But I believe his current plan reaches too far too fast."

Kerry said that the key questions were whether or not there was a credible Afghan force to partner with, whether local leaders who were on board, and whether the U.S. would follow a troop increase with increased development assistance.

Overall, his speech very much expressed an interest in narrowing the goals in Afghanistan and separating "hardcore" Taliban from those that could be convinced to lay down arms.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/26/white_house_nearing_decision_on_afghanistan_kerry_says_general_mcchrystal_plan_reac

[politicasista]

37. Interesting summary

Be nice if the complainers would submit their plans as to what to do with Afghanistan. If people can talk good games behind the anonymity of the keyboards about leaving there, then they should back it up.

Thanks for the summary. Good for Kerry and Obama. Me wishes them the best on this issue.

[EFerrari]

41. I see Kerry doing much needed push back using the language that is possible

in this political situation.

And I'm grateful to him for doing that.

The fact that our political discourse is riven from reality is not his fault.

[mike_c]

47. is that a serious question....?

Well into my fifties, thank you very much. You're assuming that I'm a child?

[karynnj]

53. Just wondering, if you remember the promise of 1968, until

the anger of that convention scared the independents, which they blamed on the Democrats, and alienated the liberals. (i am 59. Then I thought the antiwar chanting was cool, but it was sickening seeing the "law and order" Nixon slogans get traction.

As it was, in 2004, the networks had switched form showing 9 hours of the convention to 3 hours. In addition, where in every previous year I can remember before each convention, there was a puff piece biography that creates a story line suggesting why this man's could lead to him being President. They even did this with W in 2000! In 2004, not one network did this for Kerry, who really had a golden resume type background. The sole purpose of that convention had to be introducing Kerry. Kerry had everything stacked against him as it was.

[mike_c]

54. I disagree, and events were consistent with those views....

You've described the "conventional wisdom" that Kerry had to avoid opposing the war during his campaign because of parallels with the backlash against democrats in 1968-- and yes, I remember '68 too.

I don't think the situations in '68 and '04 were really that parallel though, and events would appear to support that view. First and foremost, I think MANY Americans in 2004 were hoping for articulate alternatives to Bush's neocon strategies, and in particular many wanted to hear direct opposition to the wars and specific plans to end them. Congress was talking about "timelines" even though no one had the courage to actually get them to the floor for debate. In 1968, the nation was still barely ready to even entertain the notion that the U.S. might enter into wars without good justification, or that the U.S. might not "win" any war it fought. The mood in the country was just different in 2004. Kerry gambled that it wasn't-- but he lost (or if he won, the election was close enough to steal). That's the "events have borne me out" part. Kerry's gamble did not pay off.

Second, I think Kerry actually believes much of his own rhetoric. While he certainly opposed the war against Iraq in abstract-- he argued against war before the IWR-- he voted FOR war when it counted, and while we can talk all day about what Kerry REALLY wanted, his campaign rhetoric nonetheless favored continuing the wars and excluded all discussion about ending them. Kerry froze out the anti-war movement within his own party. Not an auspicious way to go about being an anti-war candidate.

Finally, the shocking events of the '68 convention that inspired the backlash were the riots in Chicago. There could never have been anything like that during the 2004 convention-- and there wasn't, even though opposition to the war was frozen out just as effectively as it was in Chicago (where the action was on the street, not the convention floor). Articulate, passionate, and committed opposition to the war might have galvanized the left and rallied them to Kerry. Certainly embracing the need for the wars did not help him, and I think opposing them would have helped. I would have voted for him without any hesitation (I didn't though, because he ran on a luke warm war platform rather than a passionate anti-war platform).

Trouble is, I think Kerry actually does believe his pro-war position and that it's not just a campaign strategy.

[karynnj]

60. No I didn't - I was speaking oif not giving the antiwar voices time

The fact is Kerry said it was not a war of last resort. I know I knew from CCD classes as a young Catholic that translates to saying it was not a just war - in addition to the natural meaning that Bush did not exhaust the alternatives he should have. Not to mention, he said "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" thousands of times.

Kerry was entirely consistent in what he said he voted for - leverage to get the inspectors in. The fact is he did speak out against the war before the invasion and he criticized it (calling for regime change at home) as soon as it happened when the war was favored by about 70%.

The fact is that only a very small percent of the country was in favor of withdrawing. Even in 2006, when Kerry called for a deadline in getting out, less than 50% were in favor. In addition, you bought what the Republicans and media sold you. Kerry called for a regional summit, that he would start working on as soon as elected. He spoke of getting allies to rapidly training Iraqis to take control and after he lost, he got offers from Jordan, Eqypt, France and Germany to do this. In the debates he raised the issue of permanent bases and committed to have none. He spoke of having some soldiers in Iraq withdrawing as soon as 2005. The fact is that many in the antiwar movement did not want to hear Kerry as they were upset Dean lost. The fact is that going forward, Dean did not have a better plan to get out - Kerry was far clearer about what he would do.

The fact is Kerry got almost all the antiwar vote - Nader and the Green candidate (whose name I forget) got a very very small % and Kerry got something like 8 or 9 million votes than Gore did. Given that, it is impossible that Kerry lost many votes. The big problem was that we were a 1 and a half years into the war and most people thought, even if they disagreed with it, that they needed to restore stability. These things were extensively polled. If you think there was a majority of people in the general population that would vote for that, why did Kucinich get only 1 or 2% of the primary vote?

[MidwestRick]

2. What rank

did Kerry hold in the military before he resigned his commission?

[beachmom]

8. Lieutenant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_John_Kerry

[karynnj]

22. You do realize that policy and goals are determined by the civilian government

Kerry's expertise is more from his decades on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry has held 5 hearings on Afghanistan and has gone to Afghanistan several times since 2002, meeting with our military and Afghan leaders. Kerry's experience in Vietnam does give him some insight, but in some ways his ability to make very credible foreign policy statements in 1971, that impressed members of the SFRC enough that Senator Pell told him he hoped that some day he would be part of the committee.

The fact is that many people have suggested policy - many never served at all.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YvonneCa]

7. Thanks for posting this, beachmom. I think...

...Kerry's remarks are going to be judged 'by excerpt' instead of people taking the 1 1/2 hours to actually listen to what he said.

[beachmom]

10. Kerry rejects troop increase in Afghanistan

Source: Washington Post

Sen. John F. Kerry on Monday rejected a recommendation by the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan to deploy up to 40,000 more troops to that war-torn country, saying that the proposal "reaches too far, too fast."

"We do not yet have the critical guarantees of governance and development capacity" in Afghanistan, said Kerry (D-Mass.), who just returned from a trip there. "I also have serious concerns about the ability to produce effective Afghan forces to partner with, so we can ensure that when our troops make heroic sacrifices, the benefits to the Afghans are clear and sustainable."

Kerry's words have particular weight because he heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On his just-concluded visit to Afghanistan, he persuaded Afghan leader Hamid Karzai to accept a runoff in the presidential race after hundreds of thousands of ballots were deemed fraudulent.

In his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry said that additional U.S. troops should not be committed to new areas of Afghanistan unless three conditions were met: that there were enough reliable Afghan forces to work with; that there were effective local leaders; and that civilian teams were available to follow the troops and provide development assistance.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102602065.html

[mike_c]

20. Kerry needs to call for an end to the wars, unconditionally....

I'll jump up and down and bless his name when he does. Until then, he's just another war mongering senator who voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Surely you're not going to argue that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?

[karynnj]

45. Kerry clearly does not think that the wisest or best thing to do

He is not a war monger. He spoke against the invasion of Iraq before it occurred. Name calling never helps create understanding. It is clear that your views are closer to Kucinich, who you have seemed to support - which makes sense. But, Kerry has clearly spent time, energy and thought on this proposal. Holding 4 of the 5 Congressional hearings since August on Afghanistan (Berman held the other), where he grilled experts holding a wide range of views and going on a grueling trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What I see Kerry trying to do here is to get the Obama administration and the allies to jumpstart the civilian component of counterinsurgency while undertaking a more realistic, doable, security piece, creating what could well be a last chance to avoid leaving Afghanistan in chaos. As the civilian piece is so important if they go this way, assuming Kharzai is re-elected, I wonder if in addition to deciding the troops, they might need a new special envoy as it really seems none of the official team had the relationship to work with Kharzai.

While I am convinced that this is his view of the best thing to do, it also is on the spectrum of things Obama is considering. That means he has the potential to move Obama from the larger scale McChrystal plan that likely would have been where we would have gone had people like Biden and Kerry not persuaded Obama to take a pause and review options.

[politicasista]

50. Me thinks the poster loves to pick on Kerry and

no other Democrat/liberal either for amusement or just only when it comes to Iraq/Afghanistan or other wars and nothing else. Guess he isn't liberal enough for them, so they poo-poo Kerry/Feingold, Climate Change, etc.

Or it could be frustration that he isn't screaming "out now" or echoing his old Anti-War self. :shrug:

Thanks to you and everyone for trying to set the record straight in this thread.

[karynnj]

51. Actualy not, this poster has said the same about every Democrat

who has not been 100% consistently anti-war. I respect that his positions are deeply held and that is why (among other reasons) he supports Kucinich.

[politicasista]

52. Oh, ok.

Based on his posts, it sounds like he holds the Kucinich position.

[Lagomorph]

25. I don't remember nation building being part of the mandate...

I understand them wanting to cut off the Taliban/AQ drug trade profits being used to go after Pakistan and the nukes, but I don't remember that being the goal. Sometimes we need to stay out of the damn battles, even if we have the excuse of national security. It's an endless excuse. Right now the troops in Afghanistan are little more than targets. We need to GTFO or finish the job the hard way with the full meal deal. Letting it drag on and on will be a huge threat to our national security.

[avaistheone1]

48. I agree. Nation building was not part of our objectives.

We need to cut our losses and get the hell out of Bush's war.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

61. We shouldn't consider such options blindly

Doing so will put is right back in the same crappy situation we were in in the 1990s - maybe even worse, because we'll have handed radical Islam it's biggest victory in 20 years. We can't simply roll back the clock and pretend this war didn't take place and leaving has its own set of consequences.

[marshall]

26. Lowering expectations = Guaranteed success!

It's a winning combination.

[politicasista]

30. Interesting.

Looked like another Kerry bashing thread turned into a flamewar. Go figure.

[Solly Mack]

42. ...

U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853.html


SSDW

[Vidar]

43. I expect many needless deaths & see no reason to lessen that expectation.

[Nihil]

46. ... and by doing so ...

... effectively calls for Limiting Expectations in the US.

No "change" there then.

[damntexdem]

49. Ok, deal! Let's limit them to what we have ...

and bring the troops home now!