With US-Pakistan relations strained over the US mission that killed Osama Bin Laden and the push by many in Congress to accelerate withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in the wake of Bin Laden’s death, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) finds himself at the nexus of these two vital issues. Recall that Kerry was one of a number of US elected officials who visited Pakistan during the Raymond Davis saga, claiming that he felt his visit would achieve Davis’ release “within the next few days” after his visit. Davis was eventually released four weeks after the Kerry trip. Today, we see Kerry featured prominently in the news for his plan to visit Pakistan again in an attempt to repair damage to US-Pakistan relations arising from the Bin Laden mission and for his statements suggesting that a new Afghanistan strategy is now needed.
Reuters describes the Kerry’s upcoming visit to Pakistan:
Senator John Kerry will travel to Pakistan in coming days to put relations “on the right track” after the killing of Osama bin Laden in a surprise Navy SEALs raid, but he is likely to face fury from the army over what it sees as a breach of trust.
Kerry, a Democrat who is close to the Obama administration, said he expected to see “all the main players” in Pakistan to discuss strains in bilateral ties following the May 2 operation that killed the al Qaeda leader in his Pakistani hideout.
“A number of people suggested it would be good to get a dialogue going about the aftermath and how we get on the right track,” Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters in Washington.
At the same time he is playing a leading role (and rightly so, as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) in repairing the relationship with Pakistan, Kerry is also the first politician quoted in Wednesday’s Washington Post article on calls to accelerate withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan:
The death of Osama bin Laden and growing pressure from Congress to shrink the U.S. footprint and expense in Afghanistan have given new impetus to those within the Obama administration who favor a swift reduction of U.S. forces, according to senior administration officials and leading lawmakers.
/snip/
Current expenditures of $10 billion a month are “fundamentally unsustainable” and the administration urgently needs to clarify both its mission and exit plan, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said Tuesday.
Even though Kerry is described in the article as often a leading indicator for thinking from the Obama administration, it is clear that the administration has not reached consensus on a new Afghanistan strategy, as the article quotes an unnamed senior administration official that “there will be no re-litigation” of the strategy.
In my opinion, the most important point to make it into the Post story is that, at long last, there is finally a piercing of Petraeus’ training myth. The article notes that “many” now question the concept of training Afghan forces to take over when we leave and Kerry confronts the problem head-on:
Many have questioned the feasibility of plans to recruit and train as many as 400,000 Afghan security forces to take over once foreign troops depart.“Despite our best efforts, there are challenges — corruption, predatory behavior, incompetence — still evident within the Afghan army and police,” Kerry said. “On top of these problems, there is the question, ultimately, of money, resources.”
The fact that Kerry now sees that training so many Afghan troops is not feasible and will waste huge amounts of money is a huge development to make it into the pages of the Washington Post. Watch for the Petraeus propaganda machine to push back on this very hard, making over-inflated claims of progress that the press will accept at face value rather than subjecting to fact-checking. Petraeus owes much of the rapid rise in his career trajectory to his “Groundhog Day”-like reliance on always making strong progress toward troop training whether it is in Iraq or Afghanistan. And, just as in the movie, we always seem to be starting fresh on those training efforts. Why it has taken so long for Washington to figure out that we are stuck in an endless loop of re-starting training is beyond me. Perhaps Senator Kerry can help us to break out of the loop.




22 Comments

One detail to add: Not only did Kerry go to Pakistan during the Davis flap, but he snuck some of the other contractors out on his plane.
Maybe he’s going to sneak the station chief whose identity Pakistan exposed out this time?
Oooh, very good points. Thanks.
Very interesting points, Marcy!
Thanks for this post, Jim!
Hmm, I wonder if Sen. Kerry is being set up to replace Hillary Clinton at State? (This assumes she won’t stay on during a second Obama administration.)
Sidebar: Also, didn’t John Kerry personally look into the treatment and conditions of confinement of Bradley Manning? If so, I can’t recall seeing anything that ever came of his interest/intervention.
While many people (not including JW) prattle about how Pakistan is extorting the U.S. for financial aid, here are the facts.
The amount allocated to Pakistan is about one percent of AfPak expenditures. Most funds largely haven’t arrived in Pakistan
GAO Report, 1 March 2011
The “additional risk” is hogwash — there was plenty of risk already. The powers-that-be would rather have the skimming done in the USA of course. It used to be done that way, and again the funds largely never arrived in Pakistan.
BBC News, 16 May 2008
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Jim White:
Thank you for this analysis. I have thought for a long time that there are two major factions in our cirrent ruling oligarchy, the banksters and the oil cowboys and that as long as we have troops in occupation around the world, the key to remaining in office for any President is where the military lines up, kinda like Egypt. That’s why I thought it was brilliant on the part of Obama first to get Petraeus comepletely invested in success or failure in Afghanistan and then to bring him home and put him in charge of the obstensively “civilian” security aparatus of the CIA. Placing him there removed the only really threatening opponent the fascists could offer in Republican costume in 2012.Of course Petraeus is still a threat at the CIA but as long as that agency is back under “corporate” (read bankster) control, the oil cowboys have been disarmed and isolated with only their gazillions of dollars to throw at the 2012 elections.
All this, in my mind,boils down to a huge fight between the banksters who are lookin to an economic future that demands a currency other than the oil dollar and the oil cowboys who know that oil has peaked and that their position at the tough that is the US treasury depends upon squeezing every dime outta the end of the oil economy and then forcing the country to go nuclear.
In the short run I think that the banksters are gunna force us to excellerate withdrawal from Afgahnistan and eventually from Iraq and that’s a good thing.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, REMEBER NONE OF ‘EM ARE ON OUR SIDE!!
Thanks for that. It’s what I would have suspected but it’s good to have confirmation for one’s cynicism. (Would rather not be a cynic, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards.)
The U.S. has roped Pakistan into its bogus “Global War On Terror” when the established facts show that (1) military activities merely create more terrorists and (2) the best way to combat terrorism is not by creating more terrorists but by effective intelligence and policing.
Part of the U.S. strategy has been to forsake Pakistan as a true partner and instead to partner with India. The effect of this in Afghanistan, as General McChrystal assessed in 2009, is to threaten Pakistan with encirclement by its arch-enemy India, which threatens Pakistan security.
Now when a state has its security threatened, particularly a powerful country like Pakistan, it will take action to safeguard its security, and that’s what Pakistan has done by retaining ties to the Taliban.
Pakistan is needed as a U.S. ally
1. as a required logistical route for OEF,
2. as a major Muslim nation* with nukes,
3. to counter China influence in South Asia, and
4. with its ties to the Taliban, as a future stabilizing force in Afghanistan.
* Pakistan, currently the world’s sixth-most-populous country, is projected to increase its population from 185 million to about 335 million by 2050 — an increase of 81%, according to the UN Population Division. Pakistan will thus pass Indonesia — and become the world’s fourth-most-populous country. It will also replace Indonesia as the world’s most populous Muslim country.
Do these U.S. PTB running around the globe seem like Keystone Kops to anyone besides me, or am I insulting Keystone Kops.
Citizen sfmikey:
I been thinkin’ that very thing since the Egyptian debacle and now especially since Obama took all the air outta the room in killin’ OBL.
Don’t forget all of the parasitic mega-corporations that constitute the military-industrial complex. They feed off the all-war-all-the-time policy and the sale of weapons to foreign countries for use in intimidating and suppressing their unemployed and starving populations.
Our foreign policy might reasonably be labeled all-looting-all-the-time.
Mack Sennett’s ‘Kops’ were clowns and were funny.
The U.S.’s “Kops’ are clowns and are not funny.
Funny how that works out! :<(
The only safe country in the world is one that has nothing the U.S needs or covets.
I would rather be scorned as a cynical realist and proven correct most of the time than applauded as an optimistic dreamer and find myself constantly disappointed.
Of course the end result is the same: disappointment.
But, I would rather see it coming.
Kerry did nothing in response to a MA constituent’s request regarding Manning. Here’s a diary that laid down a marker on that:
John Kerry Investigating Bradley Manning’s Solitary Confinement (by greenharper, Feb. 21, 2011)
They’d still be down at Signatures drinking martinis if Jack was still around. These hardened welfare queens couldn’t have made it into the +million dollar club if they had had to actually work for it.
No one has discovered that country yet as every country needs to have at least one black site in it.
Kerry is up for reelection in 2014 — if there’s a Dem governor in MA, he can take the Secty of State job which will open in 2013 with no loss of a Dem senate seat.
But, what if there’s a R gov in MA?
The best thing Kerry ever did was to throw medals over the fence. He’s sucked up to the MIC ever since.
Don’t taze me, bro. Kerry looks on.
We’re SOL ‘cuz it’s FAR
Fragile And Reversible
Or, remember when we had generals who could win wars?
WaPo, September 7, 2007
General Petraeus’s view is considered overly cautious by some other senior military officials and some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said. But they said it reflected his concern that the security gains made so far in Baghdad, Anbar Province and other areas were fragile and easily reversed.
sinodaily, Dec 23, 2007
“Obviously, we want to reduce the strain on our ground forces as much as we can while recognizing that what has been achieved here remains tenuous and is still fragile in a number of areas,” Petraeus said on Fox News Sunday.
limun, Dec 28, 2007
Iraq has pulled back from the brink of civil war, but recent security gains are fragile and still reversible, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said on Saturday.
Reuters, Dec 29, 2007
Assessing the overall security situation in Iraq, Petraeus said progress toward curbing sectarian violence was “tenuous in many areas and could be reversed”.
humanevents, Mar 6, 2008
Citing the reduction in violence in most areas of Iraq in the past six to eight months, a confident but cautious Gen. David Petraeus told me Thursday that the progress in Iraq is both tenuous and reversible.
WaPo, April 9, 2008
During a day of hearings against the backdrop of a heated campaign for the White House, Petraeus called security in Iraq “significantly better” than before last year’s troop buildup but still “fragile and reversible.”
NYTimes, Aug 20, 2008
“It’s not durable yet. It’s not self-sustaining,” he added. “You know — touch wood — there is still a lot of work to be done.”
Fox News, April 24, 2009
Progress in Iraq is still “fragile and reversible,” Gen. David Petraeus warned Friday after back-to-back homicide bombings killed nearly 80 people one day earlier in Iraq’s deadliest day in more than a year.
Reuters, Mar 16, 2010
“The progress in Iraq is still fragile. And it could still be reversed,” Petraeus told a Senate hearing.
Afghanistan is no different
Politico, 3/15/11
Gen. David Petraeus offered his first official assessment of the war in Afghanistan as commander of allied forces on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, telling senators that U.S. operations have made inroads but progress is “fragile and reversible.”
General Petraeus’s understudy in Afghanistan is General Caldwell, who is learning his lessons well.
Brookings Afghanistan Index, Mar 29 2011:
ANA Kandaks (battalions) capable of independent action — 0
ANCOP Kandaks ” ” ” — 0
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/FP/afghanistan%20index/index.pdf
Feb 23, 2011
NATO: Afghan attrition remains stubbornly high
U.S. Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, the commander of NATO’s training mission in Afghanistan, said the Afghan army loses about 32 percent of its personnel each year. In the police, that number is nearly 23 percent.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVHvRCD5Eb73ggDtxHiAQ_5owqiQ?docId=7b9ca6ed6f8b4521ae0ac8175e3ae77b
Feb 3, 2011
Caldwell told conference attendees the three “A’s” that he foresees as being the main focus this year.
They are attrition, accountability and Afghans out in front.
The attrition rate amongst the Afghan National Security Force is too high, which won’t allow for planned growth. He added that 98 percent of the attrition rate now comes after the Afghan recruits have arrived at their assigned unit not during their training.
Regarding accountability, Caldwell said this falls under the umbrella of stewardship. Caldwell said he sees teaching and training the Afghans to account for equipment such as vehicles, radios and weapons, as being crucial to their ability to become an enduring and self- sustaining force.
On the third “A,” Caldwell said 2011 is pivotal year. “This is the year we want to ensure the Afghans are out in front.” He reinforced the importance of helping the Afghan leaders be more open to speaking with the press corps, especially the Afghan press. “We must help them understand the importance of sharing their story with their media to their people.”
http://www.ntm-a.com/news/1-categorynews/2035-petraeus-lauds-transition-efforts-in-afghanistan-at-conference?lang=
Cladwell doesn’t use the Washington Post like Petraeus did to gain notice in 2008, he goes for the Chicago Tribune.
Caldwell, Feb 15, Chicago Tribune: The surge of Afghans is the remarkable story of the tremendous growth of the Afghan National Security Force, a story will only continue as the army and police grow by an additional 35,000 by the end of October.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0215-afghan-20110215,0,4075776.story
NOTE: NO MENTION OF ANA UNITS IN THE FIELD — OR ATTRITION, ACCOUNTABILITY or Afghans are out in front — THE “THREE A’S”