Kerry: The lesson of Vietnam is don't commit troops without a clear strategy

[ProSense]

Testing Afghanistan Assumptions

The lesson of Vietnam is don't commit troops without a clear strategy

By JOHN KERRY

In the coming weeks, President Barack Obama will make the most difficult choice a commander in chief can face: whether to send more troops into harm's way.

The challenge of making the right decision was dramatized recently by the grim disclosure that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has warned that unless he gets more troops the eight-year war there "will likely result in failure."

The general provided a bleak catalogue of misaligned military operations, a corrupt Afghan government, and an increasingly lethal insurgency. He wants more troops and civilians to execute a nation-building counterinsurgency strategy that he hopes will reverse the slide. He says success is still achievable. As the commander on the ground, Gen. McChrystal fulfilled his assignment from the president, producing a tightly reasoned blueprint for a complex and increasingly dangerous conflict.

Now, we in Congress have our own assignment: to test all of the underlying assumptions in Afghanistan and make sure they are the right ones before embarking on a new strategy.

For example, one assumption of the proposed counterinsurgency plan is that our troops and civilians will be working in partnership with a legitimate and reliable government in Afghanistan. After the deeply flawed presidential election last month, we must ask whether we can succeed if our partner is weak and viewed with deep suspicion by his own people.

We also need to know whether a full-blown counterinsurgency, with its increased footprint and inevitably higher casualties, is a fundamental part of our plans to go after al Qaeda and avoid destabilizing Pakistan. Could a far smaller, well-honed counterterrorism strategy work as well or better?

Some have argued that counterterrorism commandos and sophisticated surveillance might be effective at targeting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But critics contend that a counterterrorism campaign can succeed only as a component within a larger counterinsurgency.

If we increase our commitment, we might be able to develop "good enough governance" in Afghanistan, to quote the words Clare Lockhart (co-author of the insightful book "Fixing Failed States") used at a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. But even that would not guarantee that we achieve another vital objective: avoiding the destabilization of neighboring Pakistan. Chaos there could put nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

The situation in Afghanistan has clearly changed since last March when the president unveiled his goal of defeating al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He and his advisers are exploring alternatives in light of the conditions on the ground and we should welcome the careful reassessment.

So far, the debate has focused on absolute numbers—how many U.S. and allied troops are required, how many Afghan soldiers and police do we need to train, how many more billions must we pour into that impoverished country? All the numbers are meaningless if the goal is ambiguous or the strategy is wrong.

Before we send more of our young men and women to this war, we need a fuller debate about what constitutes success in Afghanistan. We need a clearer understanding of what constitutes the right strategy to get us there. Ultimately, we need to understand, as Gen. Colin Powell was fond of asking, "What's the exit strategy?" Or as Gen. David Petraeus asked of Iraq, "How does it end?"

Why? Because one of the lessons from Vietnam—applied in the first Gulf War and sadly forgotten for too long in Iraq—is that we should not commit troops to the battlefield without a clear understanding of what we expect them to accomplish, how long it will take, and how we maintain the consent of the American people. Otherwise, we risk bringing our troops home from a mission unachieved or poorly conceived.

Gen. McChrystal offers no timetable or exit strategy, beyond warning that the next 12 months are critical. I agree that time is running out and that troops are dying without a sustainable strategy for victory. But we cannot rush to judgment.

Mr. Obama promises not to send more troops to Afghanistan until he has absolute clarity on what the strategy will be. He is right to take the time he needs to define the mission. We should all follow his lead and debate all of the options.

It may be that Gen. McChrystal has provided the road map to victory. Or it may be that some other strategy would work better, with fewer risks. We can't know until we test every assumption and examine every option.

At the end of the day, we need to answer every question to the best of our ability. Doing so will help develop the clarity required to establish goals and strategies that minimize risk to our troops, maintain regional stability, and protect our long-term national security.

[babylonsister]

1. Thank you so much, Senator Kerry. No truer words... nt

[ProSense]

14. It's an excellent op-ed. n/t

[rmp yellow]

2. Although Kerry voted for the Iraq war, he's right on this one

Thanks for learning your lesson, Senator.

[TomCADem]

3. Dubya Pissed Away Six Years In Afganistan, Now GOP Wants An Immediate Answer?

Jim DeMint, in particular, is a goofball. I did not see him saying that Dubya needed to prioritize when Dubya was trying to privitize social security, but now that President Obama is trying to reform health care, President Obama needs to commit to more troops right now even though there is no clearly articulated end game.

The bottom line should be whether or not Al Queda will once again form bases in Afganistan from where it can launch terrorist attacks like 9/11 of the attacks against Spain. We should not be building nations for the sake of doing so.

[Tansy_Gold]

4. Some points to ponder

1. Should we automatically assume that "victory" and/or "success" is possible? Should we not instead whether or not it is, first, and only then set about how to achieve it?

2. Should we not consider the costs -- ALL the costs -- of victory before we assume it is desirable?

And third:

We assume, and have assumed at least since 9/11/01, that we must get Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. We seem to believe that they can only function in the lawless wildernesses of Afghanistan or Pakistan or Somalia. What we seem to be forgetting is that they also operate in the countries they have attacked -- sophisticated modern states like the U.S.

We know that our own FBI agents (Colleen Rowley, Kenneth Williams) had good information in 2001 that, if acted upon, could conceivably have prevented 9/11. We know that the wider intelligence community, including presumably the CIA, had sufficient information to put together a PDB on 8/6/01 that warned of Bin Laden's intentions. DOMESTIC ACTION could have prevented 9/11.

No matter where the physical headquarters of bin Laden is, neither he nor Al-Qaeda is tied to a location. Defeating Afghanistan -- whatever the fuck that means -- does not mean defeating terrorism, defeating bin Laden, defeating Al-Qaeda.


Senator Kerry still believes in a military resolution. He's still saying we have to have a plan before we go in, but that assumes that one way or another, we're going in. No one ever seems to ask the question, "What happens if we don't go in? What alternatives are there?"


Tansy Gold, just asking. . . .

[ProSense]

5. That is not what he is saying

You:

Senator Kerry still believes in a military resolution. He's still saying we have to have a plan before we go in, but that assumes that one way or another, we're going in. No one ever seems to ask the question, "What happens if we don't go in? What alternatives are there?"

As Kerry said, the plan has to have an exit strategy. The assessments could reveal that no additional combat troops need to be committed and a timetable for withdrawal needs to be set.

[Tansy_Gold]

6. You just made my point for me

We already have combat troops on the ground. That's a given. Yes, it's inherited from the previous administration but it's not like it was some secret thing Obama didn't know about when he decided to run for president.


We therefore have three more-or-less viable options:
1. Go with what we have, no additions, no decreases. This is still a military solution.
2. Add to the current forces. This is a military solution.
3. Withdraw all combat forces, which requires military cover and is therefore a military non-solution.


Whether we add to them or go with what we have, the assumption is still that a military solution is waiting out there to be found, and that solution includes a military victory.

The lesson of Vietnam is that you not only need an exit strategy for victory, but you'd better have one in place in case you don't win, unless of course you don't mind a bloodbath.


TG

[ProSense]

8. No, you will obviously spin anything to fit your frame.

You: 3. Withdraw all combat forces, which requires military cover and is therefore a military non-solution.

My point: The assessments could reveal that no additional combat troops need to be committed and a timetable for withdrawal needs to be set.

[Tansy_Gold]

23. A "timetable for withdrawal" means leaving combat troops there

for a specified period of time.

Understand -- they will not be sitting on their thumbs for this period of time.

In other words, there is NO solution that can be effected without some number of combat troops, and that in and of itself is a problem no one bothered to consider.

What I don't get is how my "points to ponder" got turned into an "attack" on Kerry. It was nothing of the kind.

And for the other poster who suggested that I supported the more hawkish Clinton and before her Edwards, just FYI I never supported Edwards. (I did think he should have been chosen EARLY in Kerry's campaign in 2004 so they could have campaigned better together, but that's water long over the dam and under the bridge.)

Regardless: Civil discourse and honest discussion of differing points of view seem to have disappeared from the face of DU. Anyone who dares to criticize or even question anything coming out of the administration is automatically dubbed an "Obama hater."

I didn't attack Senator Kerry. I suggested that maybe -- just maybe, for the love of peace -- we oughta look at solutions other than military instead of always framing the debate in those terms. More troops? fewer troops? (What about the mercenaries/contractors who may number as many as or more than the military personnel? How do they figure into it, if at all?)

As someone else said, the lesson to have been learned from Vietnam was don't start wars of aggression, period.

Whether the boooshies LIHOP or MIHOP is a subject for another discussion in another forum, so I won't go there. But when presented with the excuse to start a war, ANY war, it's my personal belief that the booooshies grabbed that opportunity in Afghanistan SOLELY to pave the way for war in Iraq. They did NOT care about getting bin Laden, they most certainly didn't give a rat's ass about the Taliban.

REmember that booooosh went through that whole bullshit of dead or alive, smokin' 'em outta their holes. Too much information about bin Laden and the Taliban, etc., was public for boooosh to simply ignore Afghanistan and invade Iraq instead. Invading Afghanistan was all for show, all for cover, because what he really wanted was war on Iraq. They all did. There was so much more money to be made there. But the show had to be opened in Afghanistan.

Understand, too, that they who started the war also don't give a shit how many lives are lost. WE AND THOSE LIKE US DO NOT MATTER TO THEM ANY MORE THAN THE N***** SLAVES DID TO THE PLANTATION OWNERS. (Both will execute a deserter/escapee but not care one whit if they die otherwise.) Nor do they care about the tax $$$ lost on the war. Those tax $$$ are not lost at all -- they are flowing right straight into the hands of the uberwealthy who wanted the war(s) for that very reason.

Kerry did better in the 70s when he wondered how you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake. "Mistake" implies some element of innocence, of lack of intention. Kinda like the difference between murder and manslaughter. He, perhaps better than anyone, should know that Afghanistan is a mistake and that someone is going to end up being the last person killed for that mistake.

Iraq had a functioning modern bureaucratic infrastructure before we invaded. A reasonable skeleton of that infrastructure remains: civilian government and institutions, a population with a reasonable level of education. Afghanistan had virtually nothing like that in 2001 and has even less now. Our intervention has made our withdrawal more dangerous.

In another thread there's a discussion of Frank Rich's NYT column, which contains a comparison between JFK's policies regarding Vietnam and Obama's regarding Afghanistan. the point not made in the essay is that JFK had the option of doing nothing. There were no US troops (to speak of) on the ground in Vietnam, and if he didn't send any in, then there wouldn't be any.

Obama already has troops there, and he doesn't have the option of doing nothing. He has to get this one right, because if he doesn't, nothing else really matters.



TG

[amandabeech]

24. I hope that Sen. Kerry reads your posts, Tansy Gold.

I'll only add two thoughts.

First, be sure that you understand the country, its culture, its peoples and its geography before you decide to do anything.

Second, see what has happened to other powers choosing to get involved in that country.

AB

[Tansy_Gold]

26. Thanks Amanda.

There is, after all, a reason why Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires.


:hi:

[amandabeech]

28. Yes, indeed.

I'll be looking for you tomorrow at SWM!

Have a good night's sleep!:hi: :hi:

[ieoeja]

61. I keep wondering why it is called that?

I mean, the Greeks only ruled the country for CENTURIES before the Persians (not the Afghans) kicked them out.

Then the Persians ruled there for centuries before the Arabs (not the Afghans) kicked them out.

... Arabs ... Mongols ....

... Mongols ... Indians ....

... Indians ... Brits ....

Brits didn't last terribly long, only a century or so. 100 years might seem long enough to put the lie to the myth that they "died" there. But it is pretty paltry compared to the multitude of centuries every other conqueror ruled there.

Mind you, a century of British rule just about equals the century of indigenous rule.

How does the indigenous population of a country that has been ruled by the indigenous population for only about 100 of the past 2300 years get a reputation for being great at kicking out invaders?

[karynnj]

31. I hope the hawk that both of you supported, Hillary Clinton, will read Kerry's op ed

and pull back from her hawkish position. Incidentally, will both of you say that you disagree with her position - against Biden?

[politicasista]

73. Ooh, ouch! Good question. So far, crickets

They chirp loudly when facts are out there.

[ShortnFiery]

19. +1

:thumbsup:

[karynnj]

20. Even Feingold in the SFRC hearing on Sept 16 or 17, specifically said that he

was not for an immediate withdrawal. Every serious politician / statesman speaks of critical issues. The fact is that destabilizing Pakistan would be a disaster.

What I don't get is why you are attacking Kerry's thoughtful statement when you backed the far more hawkish Clinton (and I think Edwards before that.) You also ignore that Kerry is not limiting things to the first two points you listed as you would know if you watched any of the hearings. Even both of those options would include a huge diplomatic component.

[politicasista]

84. **crickets** n/t

[karynnj]

17. Kerry has said millions of time with both Afghanistan and Iraq that there is no purely military

solution - and he is not saying that here. Here, he is speaking from where we are. Kerry, even in 2002 preferred concentrating on OBL - remember he spoke of outsourcing the effort to get OBL to the Afghan war lords. That is a counter terrorism effort.

The fact is that having a place of refuge where OBL was free to attack from was and is untenable.

[Inuca]

29. You must have read a different

article than the one in the OP. Nothing in the article supports your statement that Kerry "still believes in a military resolution".

[beachmom]

68. Actually, you bring up an excellent point which Kerry did in 2004:

That the "War on Terror" (mostly a defunct phrase these days) is (in Kerry's words) largely "an intelligence gathering, law enforcement" kind of "war". Remember he got blasted for that by the Bush campaign?

I think the main issue, honestly, is Pakistan which is a nuclear state. That really is what should give us all pause. As to an exit, yup, I am for it, and it seems that Kerry thinks that is the goal, too, provided the area doesn't blow up in our faces after we leave.

[glitch]

7. The lesson of Vietnam was don't commit wars of aggression. Period. nt

[ProSense]

9. Afghanistan was a war of aggression? Iraq was an illegal invasion, but Afghanistan? n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

10. Afghanistan was a cover for Iraq

Iraq was the boooooshies' main objective, for whatever reasons. That's why they prosecuted it with so much more enthusiasm -- including blood and treasure -- than Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was never about getting bin Laden. NEVER. It was a.) cover for Iraq and b.) cover for a potential pipeline project.



Remember that al-Qaeda and/or bin Laden are essentially mobile. Oh, I know that bin Laden himself is pretty recognizable, but the 19 or 20 hijackers who effected 9/11 had lived and trained in the US, not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, not in Pakistan.


Afghanistan and other wars of aggression are all about fueling the corporate greed. ALL.




TG

[invictus]

12. +1

[ProSense]

13. What? That Bush used afghanistan as a cover for Iraq

has nothing to do with the reason the Afghanistan war was launched.

Don't be ridiculous.

[beachmom]

69. Osama bin Laden had basically BOUGHT Afghanistan.

He and al Qaeda needed to be taken out, and their camps destroyed. That did happen. Unfortunately, OBL escaped through Tora Bora to Pakistan. But seriously, don't buy all the BS Bill Maher has pushed. Yes, there are "satellite" al Qaeda cells all over the world. Atta and others settled in Hamburg, Germany as part of the plot. But if you have read anything about "creative class clusters", (like the financial districts of NYC and London), you would understand that when you get minds together IN PERSON, centrally located, in a relative safe haven, much, much more is accomplished.

I don't buy that al Qaeda is as strong, scattered. They may be more elusive to apprehend, but you need resources and brains physically together. That is why it was important to go in Afghanistan. Of all the massive mistakes and evil intrigues of the Bush Administration, going into Afghanistan following 9/11 was NOT one of them. It's what they did (and didn't do) from 2002 on that was the problem.

Sorry, but you are striking me as a radical lefty now. Against going into Afghanistan while it FLAGRANTLY protected al Qaeda? Just unbelievable.

[glitch]

15. Should I bother? Oh all right.

Clinton successfully pursued terrorists as criminals and didn't start a war on they country where they happened to be currently living. That was the way to handle terrorists, remember? Not waste theirs and our lives and our money on an eight+ fucking year mire.

Not to mention the fact that most of the alleged terrorists were Saudis.

And Afghanistan offered to turn Bin Laden over if they were provided proof than Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Instead of proof, war was declared on their country and their government which had nothing to do with the terrorist plot.

So yes, Afghanistan, a war of aggression. Afghanistan.

You may continue your apoplexy now.

[ProSense]

16. "Clinton successfully pursued terrorists as criminals and didn't start a war" WTF?

Clinton invaded Bosnia (against the advice of Kerry) and Somalia, and then there were the 9/11 attacks.

Figure a Clinton apologist would be in a Kerry thread pushing nonsense.

[amandabeech]

25. By "9/11 attacks" are you referring to the 1993 (or thereabouts)

fertilizer & fuel bomb detonation in the basement of the WTC?

[glitch]

33. Clinton apologist - rofl

I was trying to pick an example you might be able to relate to and understand.
Just because someone disagrees with Obama doesn't make them pro-Clinton.
That's black-white/binary thinking ProSense, not an asset.

[ProSense]

44. Well using Clinton to illustrate your example is ridiculous.

You seem to be goint out of your way to disagree with what Kerry said, which makes perfect sense.

[glitch]

49. A used a specific example of something Clinton did. And you have no idea how I feel about Kerry

just because I disagreed with one of the things he said.

Talk about reaching for a fight. Your projections give you away.

Edit - seeing how you have littered this thread, for your sake I must repeat: your binary 'with us or against us' rhetoric is not helpful to anyone, including Kerry or Obama.

[ProSense]

50. "I disagreed with one of the things he said." You disagreed with his entire premise

as if it's an either or. I disagreed with your characterization of Afghanistan as a war of aggression. You then proceeded to cite Clinton, which is completely ridiculous, especially since this is about an assessment related to Obama's policy. Obama didn't launch the war in Afghanistan.

[karynnj]

18. I don't recall Clinton ever speaking against attacking Afghanistan

The fact is that he didn't even speak against Iraq - when he was the only Democrat with a strong enough voice to make a difference. Not to mention, here and on Iraq, his wife is one of the hawks in the administration. Kerry was and is actually far less hawkish than both Clintons.

In addition, the fact is that they need a policy now - starting where they are. Kerry is right in his caution here.

[glitch]

35. I was using it as an example, Clinton pursued the first WTC bomb terrorists as criminals in 1993.

Successfully, they were tried and convicted. Using this as an example DOES NOT make me think Clinton was right on everything since then, far from it, but he was right on that.

I know Kerry has to be cautious, but I don't like to see him be over-cautious. I like him a lot and to see a brave man being over-cautious makes me cringe.

[karynnj]

85. In rhetrospect, I see the same solid methotical attention to accuracy

in both the cases he made against the Contras and BCCI. Even then, one false claim - no matter how unimportant or quickly rectified - would have discredited his entire effort. Even as solidly compiled as they were, Kerry was ridiculed and attacked by the media on the effort against Contras. The environment is more toxic now and even though Kerry is more powerful now than he was as a Freshman Senator, he risks being less effective if he does not carefully and competently build up a solid case for any alternative policy that he prefers.

He gets little credit for it, but he has done this at least twice in the last 5 years. Very few politicians had the guts to support his common sense way to fight non-state terrorism in 2004, though now it is accepted by nearly all Democrats and many conservatives. In addition, especially in 2005, he made a strong case for the US removing itself from policing and search and destroy. Even the Bush administration pulled back on this and when Obama removed US soldiers from the cities there was very little controvesy and it has helped.

I think the cautiousness is wanting to get the policy right and wanting to be as effective as possible in then pushing for it. It is seriousness of purpose rather than grandstanding.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Clinton didn't have a foreign terrorist attack with the magnitude of 9/11

The Afghanistan War was based on the premise that the Taliban were complicit in harboring Al Qaeda and therefore they shared responsibility for the attacks. From an ideological perspective we probably should have invaded Saudi Arabia as well but that's not realistic. From a realist perspective, Afghanistan was to some extent selected because it was an easy target. But the fact is that any President and not just Bush probably would've bombed something. Why? Because Americans have come to expect that attacks of that magnitude on their soil will be met with some sort of military response. The problem is that in this day and age where nations aren't the ones doing the attacking, it's hard to say whether or not such a traditional military response is justified.

[glitch]

38. Thank you Hippo_Tron!

A reasoned response, IMO we are probably agreed in our own perspectives, I am coming from an idealist position and you are coming from a realist position. Perhaps bombing something was needed but continuously bombing and putting troops on the ground for 8+ years, ay yi yi the stupidity really does burn.

I don't think we should lose either perspectives and I definitely don't think we should retreat to our heroes' camps and start lobbing bombs without looking at the issues being discussed.
Especially when it comes to discussing the starting and waging of wars.

[ProSense]

43. "From an ideological perspective we probably should have invaded Saudi Arabia" That's BS

Invading Saudi Arabia would have been no different from Invading Iraq. The Taliban were complicit. Your Saudi Arabia claim is based on the nationality of the hijackers, but they were based in Afghanistan and being aided by the Taliban. Saudi Arabia certainly has a history of aiding terrorist, but stick to the friggin facts.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. There was no Al Qaeda presence in Saddam's Iraq

There was and still is one in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, however. The difference between the Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is that the Taliban overtly told us that they were okay with Al Qaeda operating within their borders and were not willing to cooperate in our hunt for Al Qaeda. King Fahad and Musharraf told us that they were not okay with Al Qaeda operating within their borders and that they were willing to cooperate in hour hunt for Al Qaeda and yet a decade later Al Qaeda is still functioning quite well in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan leading many to believe that they really aren't all that serious about fighting Al Qaeda despite their words.

Complicity is relative and if you want to make the argument that there's a fine line that the Taliban crossed in being complicit that's perfectly reasonable. But lets say that the Taliban had handed us Bin Laden and a few other big names after 9/11 as a gesture to show that they were cooperating in the war on terror and then did just as poor of a job actually dealing with Al Qaeda as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have. Would military action still be justified?

[ProSense]

62. Who said anything about Al Qaeda being in Iraq?

You making an assumption about invading Saudi Arabia based on a false case made by Bush to invade Iraq. Neither of those countries have anything to do with the decision to launch a war in Afghanistan.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. The basis for war in Afghanistan was that they harbored Al Qaeda

My argument is that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do too even though they say they don't.

[ProSense]

65. BS

The Afghanistan war was supported by the entire U.S. Congress, including Dennis Kucinich in the House and Feingold in the Senate, based on the 9/11 attacks. Period.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy

The war in Afghanistan was based on the fact that the Taliban were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. If you extend the logic you can make the case that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were also complicit because they turned a blind eye to Al Qaeda's operations within their borders.

You cite Kucinich and Feingold to make the case that people on the left of the political spectrum as well as those on the right drew the line at Afghanistan and therefore the line is not arbitrary. I don't agree with that reasoning.

[ProSense]

67. That's complete nonsense

You're starting to think like Bush: "If you extend the logic you can make the case that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were also complicit because they turned a blind eye to Al Qaeda's operations within their borders."


To quote you: "The war in Afghanistan was based on the fact that the Taliban were complicit in the 9/11 attacks."

Period.

[blm]

32. Both Clintons are hawks on Afghanistan - and Clinton WANTED to be more hawkish

on Iraq, but the allies wouldn't invade WITH him in 1998, so he held back, not wanting to go it alone. He did step up flyovers and bombings then.

And... Clinton was Bush's number one spokesperson defending the military decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even notoriously used his 2004 summer booktour to vigorously defend Bush from the very attacks Kerry was making during the campaign.

[glitch]

37. Please see post 35.

Using an example of one thing Clinton did right in 1993 does not mean I think everything he did since then was correct. You of all people should know I am not a Clinton apologist.

And another thing, admiring Kerry does not mean I have to agree with his every statement.

[WinkyDink]

56. Did Afghanistan attack the United States? Or did Saudi nationals?

[ProSense]

63. What?

Were they in Saudi Arabia being supported by the Taliban or were they based in Afghanistan?

[WinkyDink]

76. You tell me. All I KNOW is that the accused were Saudis.

[invictus]

11. +1

[Oregone]

21. How about: Don't try and control other countries even with a clear strategy.

It might make em mad

[karynnj]

30. What would you advice starting where we are?

[Oregone]

39. leave

[glitch]

40. Well you didn't ask for my advice but here it is anyway:

Staged troop withdrawal starting now, no more bombings, especially drone. No more torture, civil rights to everyone including prisoners.

Moderate economic incentives to the people we do want in power and economic sanctions to the people we don't (Taliban and other far right extremists). But NOT the kind of regressive sanctions practiced by Clinton on Iraq.

Start promoting the type of people in the military who do not consider war/escalation the option of first resort. Definitely do not hire someone like MacChrystal to be in charge of escalating the war on Afghanistan.

Full apologies to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan complete with reparations. Apologies to the World for allowing assholes to be in charge for so long, squandering all of our resources while contributing to and allowing global warming to escalate very likely to the point of positive feedback.

:hide:

[ShortnFiery]

41. Excellent!

We won't but, IMNSHO, well put. :patriot: :thumbsup:

[glitch]

42. Thanks ShortnFiery!

In addition to IONSHO on these being the correct things to do, it's nice to occasionally find agreement on it here! :hi:

[invictus]

51. +1

[ProSense]

48. These people are hypocrites.

The minute they see the name Kerry in a thread title they swarm in like locusts.

[WinkyDink]

57. That's a bogus question, always designed to get more arms, more troops, more dead---until we

finally come to our senses.

LEAVE NOW. As quickly as we invaded, we can leave.

After all, we are now visiting VietNam as tourists.

[ProSense]

47. Right, that's why most people here were screaming for Obama to support

the Iranians who claimed the election was stolen.

[Oregone]

53. What's that gotta do with anything?

I wasn't on that bandwagon BTW. I didn't think most people were calling for a bombing & occupation.

[Romulox]

22. Great! Now he just needs a time machine. nt

[ShortnFiery]

34. Yeah, and thanks for voting for war with Iraq. IMO, you've lost perspective and credibility. eom

[invictus]

36. +1

[ProSense]

46. -1

:thumbsdown:

[ProSense]

45. There you go with the Bush was justified BS argument. The Iraq war was launched

illegally.

It's beyond ludicrous to claim Bush invaded Iraq because Congress declared war on Iraq.

[rmp yellow]

58. Then why did Obama criticize Hillary for the same vote?

The Obama campaign drew attention to Obama's better judgment, since Obama was against the Iraq war from the beginning. And I agreed with that distinction. Obama scored a big point in that respect.

Do you think it's ok to doubt Hillary's judgment while at the same time making excuses for Kerry?

[ProSense]

59. And Kerry was against the war from the beginning. He

spoke out often leading up to Bush's invasion, and he also acknowledged in 2003 that he was wrong to trust Bush. The IWR vote was not Hillary's primary problem. She was never spoke out about ending the war, was slow to coming to agreement on withdrawal and her statements exacerbated the situation.

[fedupinBushcountry]

54. Blah, blah, blah

=BS. If you think Bush went to war on a resolution you are hoodwinked. The American people at the time (70%) wanted diplomacy, that was in the resoultion. Bush decided to go to war on his own, he could of cared less what Congress thought. He broke every part of that resolution. That vote has been overplayed by both sides of the aisle. Bush is to blame, period.

[LittleBlue]

71. +1

He's such a dumbass. Still can't admit that it's not about strategy-- it's about morality.

[ProSense]

74. You need to admit that you

haven't been paying attention:

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.

As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.

link

Kerry slams “Bushes, the Cheneys, the armchair warriors" on “immoral” war

Everytime Kerry open's his mouth, even during the 2002 debate, the detractors are there with the same bullshit claims.

[ProSense]

52. Top US senator pleads for patience on Afghanistan

Top US senator pleads for patience on Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Democratic US Senator John Kerry said Monday that President Barack Obama and the Congress should not automatically grant the top US military commander in Afghanistan's request for more troops.

"We should not commit troops to the battlefield without a clear understanding of what we expect them to accomplish, how long it will take, and how we maintain the consent of the American people," he said.

"Otherwise, we risk bringing our troops home from a mission unachieved or poorly conceived," Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote in an opinion column published in the Wall Street Journal.

<...>

Kerry underlined that "the deeply flawed presidential election" there raised questions about whether the Afghan government can be a strong partner in a US counterinsurgency strategy or whether it is "weak and viewed with deep suspicion" by its people.

more

[WinkyDink]

55. The LESSON was and remains: Don't fight someone else's civil war. DO NOT INVADE.

[beachmom]

70. WE WERE ATTACKED. For God's sake. Why the nonsense on this thread?

[polichick]

72. We weren't attacked by a country. nt

[ProSense]

77. Oh please, don't be ridiculous.

The Taliban were accomplicies in the attacks and they were the government of Afghanistan at the time.

[WinkyDink]

78. Your proof would be...? Something the Bush administration claimed?

Mustn't get the Saudis, they of the radical Wahabi sect, riled. Not "Uncle Bandar Bush".

[ProSense]

80. Reality. What's your's other than spewing nonsense about the nationality of the attackers? n/t

[WinkyDink]

82. You like your Official Story. Good for you.

[polichick]

86. You can twist and spin all you want, but the fact remains...

We were not attacked by a country.

Until we deal with the reality of international criminals who will cross any national boundary and use any safe haven, we will continue to waste precious lives and resources, as well as provide terrorists with recruiting tools.

[ProSense]

87. A country and its government were complicit. Also, what exactly

do you think you can teach Kerry about fighting international criminals?

Senator Kerry, NYT 2004 article:

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us. Bush had continually cast himself as the optimist in the race, asserting that he alone saw the liberating potential of American might, and yet his dark vision of unending war suddenly seemed far less hopeful than Kerry's notion that all of this horror -- planes flying into buildings, anxiety about suicide bombers and chemicals in the subway -- could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts.

Kerry came to his worldview over the course of a Senate career that has been, by any legislative standard, a quiet affair. Beginning in the late 80's, Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations investigated and exposed connections between Latin American drug dealers and BCCI, the international bank that was helping to launder drug money. That led to more investigations of arms dealers, money laundering and terrorist financing.

Kerry turned his work on the committee into a book on global crime, titled ''The New War,'' published in 1997. He readily admitted to me that the book ''wasn't exclusively on Al Qaeda''; in fact, it barely mentioned the rise of Islamic extremism. But when I spoke to Kerry in August, he said that many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.

''Of all the records in the Senate, if you don't mind my saying, I think I was ahead of the curve on this entire dark side of globalization,'' he said. ''I think that the Senate committee report on contras, narcotics and drugs, et cetera, is a seminal report. People have based research papers on it. People have based documents on it, movies on it. I think it was a significant piece of work.''

More senior members of the foreign-relations committee, like Joe Biden and Richard Lugar, were far more visible and vocal on the emerging threat of Islamic terrorism. But through his BCCI investigation, Kerry did discover that a wide array of international criminals -- Latin American drug lords, Palestinian terrorists, arms dealers -- had one thing in common: they were able to move money around through the same illicit channels. And he worked hard, and with little credit, to shut those channels down.

In 1988, Kerry successfully proposed an amendment that forced the Treasury Department to negotiate so-called Kerry Agreements with foreign countries. Under these agreements, foreign governments had to promise to keep a close watch on their banks for potential money laundering or they risked losing their access to U.S. markets. Other measures Kerry tried to pass throughout the 90's, virtually all of them blocked by Republican senators on the banking committee, would end up, in the wake of 9/11, in the USA Patriot Act; among other things, these measures subject banks to fines or loss of license if they don't take steps to verify the identities of their customers and to avoid being used for money laundering.

Through his immersion in the global underground, Kerry made connections among disparate criminal and terrorist groups that few other senators interested in foreign policy were making in the 90's. Richard A. Clarke, who coordinated security and counterterrorism policy for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, credits Kerry with having seen beyond the national-security tableau on which most of his colleagues were focused. ''He was getting it at the same time that people like Tony Lake were getting it, in the '93 -'94 time frame,'' Clarke says, referring to Anthony Lake, Clinton's national security adviser. ''And the 'it' here was that there was a new nonstate-actor threat, and that nonstate-actor threat was a blended threat that didn't fit neatly into the box of organized criminal, or neatly into the box of terrorism. What you found were groups that were all of the above.''

In other words, Kerry was among the first policy makers in Washington to begin mapping out a strategy to combat an entirely new kind of enemy. Americans were conditioned, by two world wars and a long standoff with a rival superpower, to see foreign policy as a mix of cooperation and tension between civilized states. Kerry came to believe, however, that Americans were in greater danger from the more shadowy groups he had been investigating -- nonstate actors, armed with cellphones and laptops -- who might detonate suitcase bombs or release lethal chemicals into the subway just to make a point. They lived in remote regions and exploited weak governments. Their goal wasn't to govern states but to destabilize them.

The challenge of beating back these nonstate actors -- not just Islamic terrorists but all kinds of rogue forces -- is what Kerry meant by ''the dark side of globalization.'' He came closest to articulating this as an actual foreign-policy vision in a speech he gave at U.C.L.A. last February. ''The war on terror is not a clash of civilizations,'' he said then. ''It is a clash of civilization against chaos, of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.''

This stands in significant contrast to the Bush doctrine, which holds that the war on terror, if not exactly a clash of civilizations, is nonetheless a struggle between those states that would promote terrorism and those that would exterminate it. Bush, like Kerry, accepts the premise that America is endangered mainly by a new kind of adversary that claims no state or political entity as its own. But he does not accept the idea that those adversaries can ultimately survive and operate independently of states; in fact, he asserts that terrorist groups are inevitably the subsidiaries of irresponsible regimes. ''We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients,'' the National Security Strategy said, in a typical passage, ''before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.''

By singling out three states in particular- Iraq, North Korea and Iran -- as an ''axis of evil,'' and by invading Iraq on the premise that it did (or at least might) sponsor terrorism, Bush cemented the idea that his war on terror is a war against those states that, in the president's words, are not with us but against us. Many of Bush's advisers spent their careers steeped in cold-war strategy, and their foreign policy is deeply rooted in the idea that states are the only consequential actors on the world stage, and that they can -- and should -- be forced to exercise control over the violent groups that take root within their borders.

Kerry's view, on the other hand, suggests that it is the very premise of civilized states, rather than any one ideology, that is under attack. And no one state, acting alone, can possibly have much impact on the threat, because terrorists will always be able to move around, shelter their money and connect in cyberspace; there are no capitals for a superpower like the United States to bomb, no ambassadors to recall, no economies to sanction. The U.S. military searches for bin Laden, the Russians hunt for the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev and the Israelis fire missiles at Hamas bomb makers; in Kerry's world, these disparate terrorist elements make up a loosely affiliated network of diabolical villains, more connected to one another by tactics and ideology than they are to any one state sponsor. The conflict, in Kerry's formulation, pits the forces of order versus the forces of chaos, and only a unified community of nations can ensure that order prevails.

One can infer from this that if Kerry were able to speak less guardedly, in a less treacherous atmosphere than a political campaign, he might say, as some of his advisers do, that we are not in an actual war on terror. Wars are fought between states or between factions vying for control of a state; Al Qaeda and its many offspring are neither. If Kerry's foreign-policy frame is correct, then law enforcement probably is the most important, though not the only, strategy you can employ against such forces, who need passports and bank accounts and weapons in order to survive and flourish. Such a theory suggests that, in our grief and fury, we have overrated the military threat posed by Al Qaeda, paradoxically elevating what was essentially a criminal enterprise, albeit a devastatingly sophisticated and global one, into the ideological successor to Hitler and Stalin -- and thus conferring on the jihadists a kind of stature that might actually work in their favor, enabling them to attract more donations and more recruits.

more

[polichick]

88. We were complicit too, since we allowed the perps to take flight training here...

Another silly argument.

I haven't said a word about Senator Kerry ~ nice try.

[ProSense]

89. "We were complicit too"? Glad you admit Afghanistan's complicit, and

your claim about the U.S. being complicit is disgusting. The Afghan government knowingly and willingly supported the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

[polichick]

90. Intentional and/or inadvertent complicity does not change the fact that...

...we were not attacked by another country. There's nothing disgusting about looking at reality without rose colored glasses.

I've noticed that whenever you are wrong about something, you try to deflect.

Then I ask a question that you can't answer and you disappear.

So here's my question: What country attacked us on 9-11?

[ProSense]

91. "inadvertent complicity"? What?

These attacks were planned during the Clinton administration. Are you charging the Clinton with "inadvertent complicity" (whatever the hell that means) in the 9/11 attacks?

You:

I've noticed that whenever you are wrong about something, you try to deflect.

Then I ask a question that you can't answer and you disappear.

So here's my question: What country attacked us on 9-11?

Don't be obtuse.

[polichick]

92. Yet another silly deflection. The answer: We weren't attacked...

...by another country.

[ProSense]

93. You're answering for me?

You're ridiculous.


:rofl:

[polichick]

94. Actually, it's ridiculous that you pretend instead of admitting the answer yourself. nt

[WinkyDink]

75. YOU are writing the nonsense. Allegedly (you DO remember the basic rules of evidence and law?),

SAUDIS hijacked American planes, etc., etc.

The Taliban were co-operating with al-Qaeda? What if they were? Where is the proven link to the Saudi hijackers (alleged)? Or are all Afghanis worthy of our slaughter?

Fine; let's all go defeat terrorism.

Next war we can defeat murder and mayhem.

[ProSense]

79. Were they in friggin Saudi Arabia?

You need to get the facts straight before challenging other people's assertions. There are people of all nationalities living in all parts of the world. The attacks were conceived in Afghanistan and carried out with the support of the Taliban. Period.

[WinkyDink]

81. Shame that our defenses couldn't get four hijacked planes. And we were expected to defeat the USSR?

But whatever. The Official Story is now Fact.

[ProSense]

83. Yeah, enjoy tinfoil land. n/t

[beachmom]

95. No, you and your friends are arguing that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan,

where the Al Qaeda leadership & training camps & lieutenants were provided safe haven by the Taliban.

I am so sick of this far lefty freeper crap!!!! I mean, get a clue, read something that isn't just some spin driven drivel.

[Orsino]

96. The lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is...

...don't fight goddamned wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.