Senator Kerry's statement on Obama's speech

[ProSense]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) released the following statement this evening following President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan:

"I believe that the President defined a narrower mission tonight, not an open-ended nation-building exercise. A key component of that mission is providing that the troops will only clear and hold in places where there is capacity to build and transfer beneath them and that there will be significant partnering with Afghans in all of these efforts. That includes finding reliable Afghan partners in governance. If these criteria are met, then there is a chance for success. The President is correct to say the essential focus must be on Pakistan. What happens in Pakistan, particularly in the west, will be more critical to the outcome in Afghanistan than the increase in troops or shift in strategy there. I will support additional troops, providing their deployment stays within the strict understanding of the need to transfer and build as well as partner with Afghans. The only way to be successful is to rapidly transfer responsibility to the Afghans and anything short of that will end in failure, no matter how many troops we send to Afghanistan. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will continue to examine our Afghan policy in public hearings in the coming days and beyond."

[PBS Poll-435]

1. k/r

[NYC_SKP]

12. me2

:P

[PBS Poll-435]

14. It was a little "K/R"

because linky was missing.

Gotta have your bibliography to get full credit.

[NYC_SKP]

16. And in APA style, by the book.

Gawd I'm glad I'm done with grad school...

[Sparkly]

2. Thanks for posting this. nt

[saracat]

3. The Sen. is very cautious in his wording.And doesn't sound convinced yet.

This is very "provisional" support with a request for further examination.

[JI7]

5. and Obama likely had the same questions for the Generals and others who advise and requested

this

[saracat]

6. Could be. Just saying real reserve on the part of Kerry.

[karynnj]

20. I agree that it is very conditional support from a close ally

or you could say "nuanced" - a word never used with Senator Kerry. :)

I think this is the best way for Kerry to support Obama and more importantly do his own job. This statement seems true to his own statements - spoken, written in op-eds, and presented in a speech. Obama's plan raises troop levels faster than Kerry would have from his speech. It does seem that Obama is relatively close to Kerry's suggestion of what the mission should be. Obama's plan was only vaguely defined, but it clearly rejected the neo-con type mission of McChrystal and the purely counterterrorism mission that people have attributed to Biden.

[Clio the Leo]

9. But he didn't accuse the President of being "Bush Lite"....

.... at least that's what I took from it.

[saracat]

13. Who said he did? Not me! I said he was"'reserved" in his support.

[karynnj]

18. Definately conditional support

Many of those qualifications match things he explained as important in his October speech. Kerry's own plan limited COIN to areas we could clear where there was "good enough governance" and trained Afghanis to take over control as we cleared an area. Kerry, more than anyone else Obama was speaking to, was concerned with our presence being seen as occupation. He spoke of the seeing the asame looks on the faces of people of Afghanistan as he traveled in a heavily armored vehicle that he saw in Vietnam. His comment here,

"I will support additional troops, providing their deployment stays within the strict understanding of the need to transfer and build as well as partner with Afghans. The only way to be successful is to rapidly transfer responsibility to the Afghans and anything short of that will end in failure, no matter how many troops we send to Afghanistan."

warns against mission creep. My guess is that given the people who still speak of "democracy" that fighting mission creep from what one commentator described as Obama defining the "narrowest mission yet".

[Cha]

31. And, Senator Kerry's words..

"But 90 minutes after Obama finished, his closest congressional foreign policy ally, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, brought the expectations back to scale.

"I believe that the president defined a narrower mission tonight, not an open-ended nation-building exercise,”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091202/pl_politico/30093

[quiet.american]

4. I'm sorry but this does not belong on DU.

Haven't you heard? Obama is Bush Redux and not to be trusted.

:sarcasm:

[babylonsister]

7. Thank you, and rec'd. The first hearing is tomorrow, folks. This

is serious stuff, taken seriously. Finally.

[Clio the Leo]

10. I'll be watching......

..... and hope all DU posters (who are able) will join me.

[karynnj]

21. I will be - it is at 9am

The SFRC has redesigned its web site and now seems to have a very prominent link on their home page to view a hearing when it is live. (I noticed it when they had a hearing yesterday on the nomination of a new head of USAID) The link was in the top left hand corner above the eagle that is now there. The witnesses are Hillary Clinton, Gates, and Mullen. Their prominence means it may be carried live on various cable shows or at least CSPAN3.

But if not, here is the link to the SFRC website - http://foreign.senate.gov/

[Cha]

30. That's it isn't? It's being taking seriously now

and it's going to take longer than we'd like to wind it down but reality can be a bitch.

[bevoette]

8. betrayal! interloper! off with his head!!

:sarcasm:

lol

actually...he sounds very cautious and reasonable, as i believe Obama did

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YvonneCa]

17. He is a VERY...

...O.K. guy. :patriot:

[tandot]

15. K & R

[jefferson_dem]

19. Et tu, JK?

Talking sense. :)

[Mass]

22. Good, but very cautious statement of support.

Did any other Democratic senator made a statement of support of the policy as a whole (I know that our other senator opposes sending more troops).

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. I call bullshit.

100k troops vs 100 AQ? Please. If this isn't "nation building" in a country of tribes (ie, no "nation" exists), then what exactly is it?

Sorry, Sen. Kerry - I am not buying it.

[karynnj]

26. No just AQ, there is the Taliban

In addition, the point is that they can provide safety to areas which can then be transferred to the Afghanis. The fact is it takes MORE soldiers to provide security than it takes to attack. Kerry in his own plan was against the huge escalation - that explains his caution that he will not support anything other than what Obama said that they were suppose to do.

[Ruby the Liberal]

28. And they are in Pakistan.

[karynnj]

32. The taliban is in both Afghanistan and Pakistan

They control major parts of SW Afghanistan.

[msallied]

24. Of course his support was conditional. As all of ours should be.

Even the most optimistic among us should not be going "Rah-Rah-BOMBS" That's the job of the bloodsuckers on the right.

[Cha]

27. No, of course not..no rah rahs from anyone..only

being accused of it from those on the so-called..actually I'm not really sure where they're from.

[msallied]

33. Indeed.

Sigh. I'm so sick and tired of this crap.

[Cha]

25. Thanks Senator Kerry..I know Pres Obama appreciates

having you around as do so many people out here.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Nice. Senator Kerry is treating a serious decision about a serious issue very seriously.

Unlike many of the anonymous keyboard knee-jerk anti-Obama clowns here, Senator Kerry knows what he's talking about.

K&R

[Duende azul]

34. He "believes".

How many will base their view on all the reshaping, interpreting that's thrown around.
It's uncomfortable to be in dissent with the official viewpoint. Even more if you like the person in question.
So Kerry has to throw some last straw for those who are uncomfortable with the war but don't dare to oppose their President?
What Kerry believed may not count in a few years from now.
How will Kerry bring those soldiers home if his requirements aren't met?
Will it work as fine as it worked with Bush's Iraq war? When they realized that they better had voted against it from the start?


And in the coming years the prowar people will ask "didn't you listen to the SPEECH?".
But for now the agenda is: feed the peoples hopes it may not come that bad.

Later on they will ridicule you. Because it was all in the speech.

So, if you can't find anything reliable, measurable in the speech you better not fall for the image that's sold the next weeks and month. Don't hope for anything good coming out of this.

[politicasista]

35. Kick

:kick: :patriot: