Sen. Kerry Speaks Out on Afghanistan

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 7, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                               

            Telling the truth about the Afghan War, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told the White House that he’s not on the same page.  Kerry watched patiently while President Barack Obama—a war critic during the ’08 presidential campaign—jumped on the Pentagon bandwagon, adding 20,000 troops in March ’09 then another 50,000 in Dec. ’09, amounting to what former President George W. Bush called his “troop surge” strategy.  “What I don’t want is to be a party to a policy that continues simply because it is there and in place,” said Kerry.  “That would be like Vietnam.  And that is what I am determined to prevent,” coming a little late to the party.  Kerry knows that since Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom Oct. 7, 2001, the mission has dramatically changed from one chasing al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden and the Taliban’s Mullah Mohammed Omar, both escaped to Pakistan Dec. 14, 2001.

            Since then, the U.S. assisted its Afghan-backed leader Hamid Karzai to stabilize a country partitioned and controlled by warlords, many involved in the lucrative opium trade.  Karzai, himself, has close family ties through his opium-trading half-brother Ahmed Ali Karzai.  One hundred-and-fifty-five-thousand troops grace Afghnaistan’s desolate mountainous landscape, forcing, in some instances, the voluntary military to complete two to three tours of duty.  “Obviously, I think progress has been made in military terms, but everybody agrees there is not a military solution,” said Kerry, rejecting the prevailing wisdom that the “troop surge” is somehow working.  “What I worry about is whether or not the governance  [improves] sufficiently to make a difference,” questioning the mission.  Kerry wants to get out the truth to help save the U.S. military and economy.

            Questions about Karazi’s loyalty has been bandied about for sometime, in between his tirades against the U.S. government, something that scores him points with the Taliban.  No one has disputed Karazi’s Pashtun family ties to Kandahar region, where coalition forces have loaded up.  Kerry plans to hold oversight meetings in coming weeks as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  If Kerry manages to shine a negative light on Afghanistan, the White House should restrain itself from a propaganda blitzkrieg, the kind of practice that happened often during the Bush administration.  With Obama poised to begin winding down the mission, there’s no point in sugarcoating Afghanistan’s immense human and financial toll.  Just ask the Russians, whose once mighty Soviet Empire came tumbling down after nearly 10 years of bloody guerrilla war in mountainous Afghanistan.

            Nearly 10 years of U.S. military involvement has cost 1,500 lives and over $400 billion but hasn’t established a coherent central government.  Karazi barely controls the capital of Kabul, selling off the rest of the country to tribal warlords controlling much of Afghanistan’s lucrative opium trade.  “I think we also have to look carefully at how much further we are going to give the president’s strategy and the troops time to work,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), questioning the costs vs. the benefits.  Kerry rejects comparisons to Vietnam, where he testified before the late Sen. J. William Fulbright’s (D-Ak) Committee about the war’s futility.  “How do you ask as a man to be the last man to die for a mistake,” Kerry once said to the same committee.  Kerry now must take a careful inventory of the war’s progress.

            Kerry rejects comparisons to Vietnam because he believes Afghanistan or neighboring Pakistan represent credible threats to the U.S., just as they did before Sept. 11.  “Some people try to make it [Vietnam] and some people want it to be the same exercise,” Kerry said.  “But it just isn’t.  Unlike Vietnam, where there was no threat to the United States, and no real strategic interest—it was trumped up—here there is a real one,” referring to ongoing planning by Bin Laden in Pakistan.  Kerry surely knows that the U.S. doesn’t have to have 155,000 troops in Afghanistan to plan operations to one-day get Bin Laden or other Sept. 11 planners in Pakistan.  Johnson administration officials under Defense Secretary Bob McNamara made a strong link between Vietnam and holding the line in Asia against Soviet hegemony.  Kerry can’t make that same argument in Afghanistan.

            Given today’s economic mess, the White House can’t continue to give the Pentagon a blank check without some guarantees.  After stealing an election Nov. 3, 2009, there’s no assurance that Karzai can extend his reach beyond his fiefdom in Kabul.  Given Karazi’s close family ties to the Taliban and opium trade, there’s also no guarantee that he leads Afghanistan by any consensus.  “I don’t work for the administration,” said Kerry.  “I work for the people of Massachusetts and I have a responsibility to myself and my conscience to get this right.  I am determined to call it the way the truth tells me it ought to be called,” hinting he should in the strongest possible way tell Obama to get out.  Too many lives and precious tax dollars have been thrown down a rat hole.  It’s time for Democrats to face reality, start the exit strategy and help the Pentagon find a face-saving way out.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.