Kerry On President Obama’s Decision On Afghan War Command

[ProSense]

Kerry On President Obama’s Decision On Afghan War Command

“The Commander in Chief has made it clear no one is bigger than the mission and nothing less than a unified effort in Afghanistan will get the job done. His decision to return General Petraeus to the battlefield provides not just continuity in philosophy, but tested diplomatic skill that is at the very center of a military strategy which hinges on progress in governance to sustain military gains. The strategy and the objectives must be the only agenda. That’s what really counts. American lives are on the line and America’s security interests hang in the balance. We cannot afford another minute of distraction. We’ve already seen in Marjah that impressive military gains cannot be maintained without effective local governance and Afghan ownership. This must happen to give the mission a chance to succeed.”

[tekisui]

1. There is no job to get done. They are all spinning for endless war.

[JuniperLea]

2. Yep...

.

[ProSense]

3. Maybe it would help to understand the

President's policy?

Never understood why people thought this was about McChrystal. It's not. Kerry is not spinning endless war.

[tekisui]

5. I read it before. Nothing of substance or definition there.

A lot of meaningless feel good words.

[ProSense]

8. Exactly what were you expecting to change because McChrystal was relieved?

Regardless of what you think of the policy, it's the President's call.

[tekisui]

11. Sadly, you are right. Obama has followed the wrong policy

from day one. I was hoping that Obama might take this opportunity to change our direction there. Out with the failed generals and strategies.

I don't know why I even considered it would be a change. I guess it was all of the loyal DUers who were roundly denouncing McChrystal AND his failed strategy yesterday.

[ProSense]

13. "I was hoping "

I was listening.

2007: Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win

2008: McCain and Obama on Afghanistan

[tekisui]

14. Come on! A lot has happened since 2007-08. I wouldn't even consider

those quotes relevant. We have tried Obama's strategy. It failed. More US soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan under Obama than before Obama. He will hold the distinction for deaths, probably sometime next year. His escalation has been an absolute failure.

It is time he let go of staying the course.

[ProSense]

16. So you're looking for more recent quotes?

The Obama-Biden Plan

How about the current policy?

[tekisui]

18. I'm not looking for any links to the WH.

I am looking for a leader that knows when it is time to leave.

[karynnj]

25. I was hoping the same - I think that they need to re-evaluate because their

policy is not working.

As to Kerry's statement - I assume that his public positions are likely to be as supportive of Obama as he can be, while he does have Obama's ear and has pushed for a smaller effort. This makes sense if it makes him more likely to influence Obama - even though he, Reed, Rahm and Biden lost to the hawks Clinton, Gates and McChrystal.

[karynnj]

6. Read what he said - We’ve already seen in Marjah that impressive military gains cannot be maintained

Last year, in his hearings that led Kerry to recommend a smaller effort than Obama went with, this was his concern. Kerry has from the beginning articulated concern with the massive COIN that McChrystal pushed - and here he is pointing out that they did not succeed. Kerry has again been having hearings - one yesterday. What will be interesting is what Obama will try to implement via Petraeous.

[tekisui]

12. You have to be kidding!

The Taliban never left Marja and have been moving back in for months. Marja was not an impressive gain by any stretch. The clear-hold-build strategy failed horribly there. They can't get a non-Taliban government up and going.

[karynnj]

24. That's what I thought I said

The lack of the potential governance was - as I said - why Kerry was against the strategy. Note he said "impressive military gain" It is true that the US millitary, with much loss of life did gain "control" of a large area. The problem was that as soon as we started to leave, the Taliban resurfaced.

[VMI Dem]

4. America's security interests hang in the balance? Jesus Christ.

Bush Doctrine.

[karynnj]

7. No it isn't - how is this the Bush doctrine?

[VMI Dem]

9. Justifying this fucking war as maintaining America's security?

Using the mere possibility of future threats as reason to wage aggressive war? Bush Doctrine.

[ProSense]

10. Which he did throughout the 2008 campaign. n/t

[Smashcut]

15. So? What's your point?

His policy ALWAYS sucked, therefore it can't be criticized?

[ProSense]

17. No, that's your point. n/t

[Smashcut]

19. Actually, no, that's what you just implied.

I see the team has come up with no rebuttal.

[ProSense]

20. No, I didn't.

And before another futile exercise of assigning your interpretation to my statement: You can criticize any damn thing you feel like. What you can't do is deny that this has been the President's position all along.

[Smashcut]

21. Who's denying that this has been the President's position? No one. We're criticizing the policy.

You're the one who's trying to change the focus of the discussion because you couldn't credibly refute that maintaining military conflict to prevent future national security risks is in fact the essence of the Bush Doctrine. Typical misdirection tactic.

[ProSense]

22. "You're the one who's trying to change the focus of the discussion."

It's my thread, and it's about Kerry's statement. Want to discuss the suckiness of Obama's policy: start your own damn thread.

[Smashcut]

23. Oh, I see.

Sorry to post on "your" thread.