In June, Kerry addressed using the military to fight terrorism.

[ProSense]

Audio: Kerry Calls for New Apporach to Fighting Terrorism

An excerpt from Kerry's speech:

What are these myths and misconceptions? There are four principal fallacies that led us into this disastrous war in Iraq—and one that is still being used to justify our presence there today.

The most obvious is the notion that defeating terrorists is primarily a military effort focused on nation-states. The phrase “war on terror” purposefully brings to mind troops deployed to fight armies in battle. And this very mindset tempted the Administration to choose traditional targets like Iraq instead of hunting down non-state actors in Afghanistan. In fact, we now know that some in Don Rumsfeld’s Pentagon initially considered bombing Iraq first instead of Afghanistan because military planners couldn’t find enough Taliban targets to bomb—a vivid illustration of the flaws of an exclusively military-driven, state-centered approach divorced from the actual threats we faced then and still face today.

Make no mistake, the military clearly has a role to play -- sometimes even against another government. Exhibit A is Afghanistan -- where we were right – and we were unified – in overthrowing a regime that harbored the terrorists who attacked our homeland. But this is the exception. Don’t take my word for it. There’s a reason why the Army’s own counterinsurgency manual written by General Petraeus makes clear that using massive military force risks playing into our enemies’ hands. And Osama Bin Laden himself has declared that his strategy is to “provoke and bait” the United States into protracted “bleeding wars” that drain our resources and our national will while painting us as the aggressor in the eyes of the Muslim world. He’s gotten exactly what he wanted in Iraq.

And we know that conventional military force is not the most effective way to destroy terrorists hiding out in sovereign nations. Getting that job done largely falls to our intelligence agencies and special operations forces, and it will always hinge on coordination with countries where terrorists hide – exactly the areas in which we are the least equipped to work effectively. Why does that matter? Because make no mistake, if an attack on America is ever hatched in a Pakistani neighborhood in London, we won’t be bombing Buckingham Palace—we’ll be working with MI5 to hunt down the perpetrators.

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. K&R

:kick:

[MH1]

2. Ah, common sense.

So refreshing.

[karynnj]

3. Maybe the country should try a novel idea,

listen to what Kerry has to say, rather than not listen and then say "Kerry was right" a year or two later.

The last paragraph is perfect - we would never be bombing London, but would be working with the British. Not just because we see the British as more like us, but because it would be stupid and wouldn't work.

[ginnyinWI]

6. that's the perfect example to give to these "bomb 'em all" types

You still can hear them on Washington Journal. Seems as long as it's in the Middle East, it's okay to just drop a bomb on them all. Was that Stalin who said he'd rather kill a lot of innocent men to make sure he got the guilty ones? Hmmmm....

We'd never bomb London in a million years. Cause they are a "good" government. :crazy:

[beachmom]

4. Yep. He is the master, and I value his opinion above any other politician

for foreign policy. And he is holding the ship in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while half the committee is out pretending to fight with each other on issues they actually agree on.

[ProSense]

5. Kick! n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

7. John Kerry is right, as usual. n/t

[eridani]

8. We were not right in Afghanistan

We didn't do jack shit there except bomb it, and rely on our warlord allies who aren't much different from the Taliban to do the work on the ground.

[ProSense]

9. We were right...

to go after the terrorists who attacked us. Kerry didn't say Bush's execution of the war was right. In fact, Bush's policies pretty much suck!

[eridani]

11. But that isn't what we did

We outsourced going after bin Laden, and focused instesd on dominating the replacement government, filling it with warlords and putting an oil company shill in charge. The loya jirga wanted the former king (on the grounds that he had pissed off the fewest number of people), but we wouldn't even let them have that. That was exactly ass-backwards--we should have not attempted to dominate the state apparatus, but instead put our resources into going after bin Laden ourselves.

[karynnj]

14. You're practically using Kerry's words

He criticised Bush for "outsourcing" the job. He also suggested - in 2004 and in the speech in he op- that we go after the terrorists themselves.

[eridani]

17. Yes, on the bin Laden half of the equation this is pretty much what he said

He didn't go into much detail on the question of attempting to dominate the government of Afghanistan, though. Not that the Taliban doesn't suck pretty badly, but I have seen zero evidence of outsiders who know jackshit about other countries being able to remodel those societies at gunpoint.

[wisteria]

10. Another powerful and well thought-out speech on Iraq from Senator Kerry.

Always right and ahead of the pact.
Thanks for posting, I hadn't had an opportunity to hear this speech.

[Major Hogwash]

12. Why isn't Kerry running for President again? He's the only 1 with any credibility left!

Gezzus, it's getting to the point I wish they drafted that SOB into running again.

If, for nothing else, to tell Joe Biden to shut the fuck up!
I can't believe Joe said it would take us longer than 6 months to get out of Iraq during the YouTube debate last week.

Gawd, that pissed me off.

[karynnj]

15. In his speech when he said he wasn't running

he spoke of Iraq. I seriously doubt, in this politically charged season, that all the Democrats would have lined up behind what is essentially Kerry/Feingold. At this point, there are even some Republicans behind it, as are a large majority of Americans. The next President will be in a position to put something like it in place, if Bush is not pushed to do so. Kerry's name may not be on the plan that succeeds, but his ideas are in it and he is working as hard as ever for it. Though it's clear he would like to be President or, even given credit for his ideas, he clearly meant what he said in the Senate speech when he said he wasn't running - there are things that need to be fixed now.

I think the speech that is in the OP was at the new National Security think tank that Kerry was a key participant in setting up - that Gary Hart heads.

[BlueIris]

13. K&R.

[politicasista]

16. K&R

:kick: