Tweet
National Journal‘s Michael Hirsch has an exceptionally insightful piece about John Kerry as a bellwether for Senate Democratic positioning on Afghanistan. It’s a story that lends itself to cynicism — Kerry must be wringing his hands because he wants to be secretary of state — and that cynicism might be appropriate. But it’s also possible that Kerry doesn’t think it’s self-evident that the war is an irredeemable disaster, and is groping for a salvageable path forward. There’s as much evidence for that proposition in Hirsch’s piece as there is for the cynical interpretation.
To wring my own hands for a moment: trying to find that kind of salvageable path would make more sense if the Obama administration weren’t committing the U.S. much deeper to the war after gesturing a year ago at the beginning of extrication. And Kerry isn’t on solid ground for this point:
“…There is a realistic national-security threat through the Taliban’s affiliation with al-Qaida and al-Qaida’s efforts to attack us.… Look at what happened in the Times Square bomber case; look what happened to the airplanes” that were recently threatened by package bombs.
These are points about a threat from al-Qaeda untethered to Afghanistan. Well, that’s not exactly true. In Faisal Shahzad’s case, these were his stated motivations:
At his court appearance in June, Shahzad said he wanted “to plead guilty and 100 times more”.
He said he wanted the US to know that if it did not leave Iraq and Afghanistan, “we will be attacking US”.
Shahzad’s courtroom diatribe is often truncated into a brief against the drones, but it goes much further than that. It stands to reason that the longer we stay in Afghanistan and expand the war into Pakistan, the more Faisal Shahzads will emerge. Perhaps that’s an acceptable cost. Not every provocative action is improper by the fact of its provocative force. But it has to be treated as a cost, not an argument for remaining in the same provocative position.
2 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
The United States has imposed a military occupation and dictatorship against two countries, Irak and Afghanistan. This violation of international law has no end. There is no victory that can be described, other than the continuing genocide by the neo-con controlled Pentagon. It is common that indigenous people victimized by a fascist military frequently rebel and attack their oppressors.
Is it the policy of this blog to support the Pentagon as they carry out COINTELPRO against Wikileaks? If so, perhaps you should say why you are not defending Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Your meme about those rascally Al Qaeda leaves out one fact, revealed by Wikileaks. Our supposed ally Saudi Arabia is Al Qaeda.
I disagree that the National Journal is insightful. There is something very shallow when the article ignores all of the oversight hearings that Senator Kerry held – especially those in 2009, when the President was trying to find a path forward.
He also completely ignores a series of opeds Kerry wrote in that time period and a major speech given at the CFR where Kerry articulated his recommendation and spoke of misgivings on the path that Obama took. (http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=8ad4653c-a11c-40c2-ab71-e01ceba481c3 The Boston Globe oped, written at that point is here – http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/04/in_afghanistan_kerry_keeps_us_goals_modest
If you look at the comments of Kerry’s that he quotes as “new” and speaks of him now echoing Biden, what Kerry is saying is identical with what Kerry said in that CFR speech over a year ago. Biden’s position at that time was different in that he wanted a counter-terrorism only approach. As to the centrality of Pakistan’s needs, one of the 4 2009 SFRC hearings was specifically on Pakistan.
From all MSM sources, including the NYT, Gates, McChrystal, and Clinton argued for the surge in 2009; Biden, Kerry and Reed argued against it and President Obama sided with those in favor of the surge. Kerry’s statement on Obama’s plan was not a ringing endorsement of Obama’s decision. Kerry has publicly cautioned the Obama administration on Afghanistan starting with comments he made at the confirmation of Hillary Clinton. Most recently, at a the hearing last July with Richard Holbrooke, both Holbrooke and Kerry expressed very strong concerns about Marjah and Kandahar.
It would seem that before writing a cover story for a serious periodical, the writer would have reviewed the speeches and the hearings, rather than DC gossip. Aside from having his position wrong, it is idiotic to think that Kerry’s position would be driven by desire to be Secretary of State. If being supportive to Obama were the road to that, Kerry would have been nominated in early 2009. He, not Clinton, was the top Obama foreign policy surrogate in 2008 and he had far more foreign policy experience and – as has been seen – far more diplomatic skill. In addition, if that were the case, there would be no comments like Senator Cardin’s saying that Kerry was the one that the caucus would listen to. Cardin is on the SFRC – unlike the writer, he knows the serious oversight that Kerry has done.
Throw in that Hirsh repeats long debunked smears – like Kerry being in an “alliance with Jane Fonda” and implying that Kerry’s willingness to speak out in 1971 was almost a Tourette Syndrome part of Kerry that interferes with him being a statesman. That – in conjunction with the Cardin comment, make it seem like Hirsh’s goal is to pre-emptively question Kerry’s motivations and his character because – as Cardin said – Kerry is someone who many in the Democratic caucus would listen to if he were to oppose further efforts in Afghanistan.
Could this be an effort by someone who is an advocate of nation building in Afghanistan?