Strategy "Expert" John Kerry Says Too Early to Reinf Afghan

Discussion in 'US' started by jumpinjarhead, Oct 18, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. None other than strategy "expert" John Kerry (who I believe is among other things, a traitor for his uncorroborated accusations of widespread war crimes by US forces in Vietnam while they were still in combat) says we should wait to reinforce Afghanistan. God help us if we are taking counsel form someone like this.

  2. It is important to realize that Senator John "Live Shot" Kerry earned that nickname many years ago in Massachusetts due to his need to get his ugly lantern jawed face on the evening news, referably with a "live shot" outside the courthouse where he worked. During his entire Senate career he lived in the shadow of Ted Kennedy. Now that Kennedy is gone he is crushed to realize that the media would much rather show the Chosen One. It must be crushing for the man's huge ego. The result is that he will say anything to get news coverage. It would be pathetic but for the fact that JFK wields the power of a committee chair.

    It bothers me that a man like Kerry is the senior Senator from my state. Despite all his faults and frailties at least Kennedy was generally sincere in what he said. Kerry is simply an attention whore.

    (In addition, he is the only member of the US Senate who is a War Criminal. He said he was before a committee of the US Congress many years ago)
  3. John Kerry - the only war HEEERROOO from the Vietnam War (no shit he said so) I despise him even more than Nobama.

    "In 1971 and '72, for almost 18 months, he (Kerry) stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it." -Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

  4. I know how you feel. I, however, despise him without regard to anyone else--he is a despicable person who belongs in that special place in hell reserved for such traitors such as Jane Fonda.
  5. Is that Bruce Forsyth?
  6. Good old Kerry


    He's never been the same since the show was cancelled.
  7. He has a rather ham-fisted way of saying it, but he's essentially making the same point as McChrystal. Any additional effort will be for nothing unless the Afghan government can sort its life out. Other interviews and statments of recent weeks where he's telling people how wonderful Karzai is are much more problematic- especially once the realizaiton dawns on people that he has to go for any of this to go anywhere.

    Let me ask you bunch of geniuses- what would you do differently? Answers on the back of a postcard to:

    B. Obama
    1600 Pennsylvania Ave

  8. Got to agree with Crabtastic like he said answers on the back of a postcard or a stamp

  9. At least for me, (and yes I fully admit my close-mindedness on the point--call me petty and shallow) anything Kerry says is not worth listening to--it is the speaker who nauseates me regardless of the words he uses--all of which you can bet money on are calculated to play to whatever audience Kerry is trying to impress at the time. Every time he opens his mouth all I hear is his unconscionable and self serving testimony before Congress during the Vietnam War.
  10. Sorry, I do not get too hung up on the senator's Vietnam history (I hear what you're saying), but this whole notion of just waiting to decide is wrong. You do not cross a river with half a step.

    AFP - Senator John Kerry says it is "irresponsible" to send more US troops to Afghanistan at this time, amid a deepening election crisis that has placed the Kabul government's legitimacy at stake.

    The United States should not proceed with a new Afghanistan strategy committing a potentially major increase in US resources, including tens of thousands more troops, without first securing a clear partner in Kabul, Kerry told CNN during a visit to Afghanistan, in a interview to be aired Sunday.

    "It would be entirely irresponsible for the president of the United States to commit more troops to this country, when we don't even have an election finished and know who the president is and what kind of government we're working in, with," said Kerry, chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    "When our own commanding general tells us that a critical component of achieving our mission here is, in fact, good governance, and we're living with a government that we know has to change and provide it, how could the president responsibly say, 'Oh, they asked for more, sure -- here they are'?" Unquote.

    That, over 4 small paragraphs, is the same statement over and over again.
    I see little in the way of reasoning or arguing why all of our waiting, dithering and hesitating is doing much to improve the situation.

    What little I know about Vietnam comes (well, not only) from watching old movies...wait for it..."there I was, still only in (insert favourite shithole), while all the while Charlie/Terry/favourite insurgent squats in the yy, getting stronger, by the minute..."
  11. Putting Kerry aside, I agree in principle. While it is possible I suppose that the continued delay is for the purposes being stated by the White House, I am skeptical. My sense is rather that much of the apparent hand-wringing is about how to thread the political needle the LEADER OF THE WORLD has created for Himself by emphasizing the criticality of success in Afghanistan during his campaign (according to some observers as a way to demonstrate he would have resolve as Commander in Chief to counter criticisms of his opponent(s) (Hilary and then McCain) and to try to make a distinction between Afghanistan and the ever evil Bush's war in Iraq) but now needing to find a "graceful" way out of the growing mess to placate those on the left of his party who are becoming increasingly strident in their demands for immediate exit.

    Of course such political maneuvering is inevitable in such matters but it is no less frustrating when it occurs at such a critical time in a war that is so dependent on weather and season.
  12. To sum up the discussion at hand:

    there are TWO (well three if disengaging immediately were possible after painting one self into the proverbial corner):
    - treat this as a strict CT op, then a few SF and UAVs with lookdown shootdown capability might do the trick, or
    - see the whole situation in terms of a COIN (which allegedly presupposes a semi-credible gvmt in the first place, so critics have a point) in which case its going to be protracted, messy and, oh yes, you need to focus on a POLITICAL solution, which unfortunately means addressing grievances, parlaying with insurgents, negotiating with the Taliban in this case on both sides of the Durand, and oh yes (II) will take commitment - not dithering.

    Soon (already in some places, the winter will provide some respite, but come spring, we all (and NATO ministers agreed - in principle - to McC's concept [COIN] had better get our sh*t in a sock.

    But, that's just what I think.
  13. Good points as usual (not surprising given your classic work On War). As I continue to say, any discussion of the delay in a decision by the US must be in the context of the limited time window involved. The estimates I have seen say we need a minimum of 2 months to get substantial reinforcements in country and acclimated for operations. This means we are already in the critical time if we are to have it in one sock (as you so vividly put it) by the spring offensive season.
  14. Why waste postage?