Kerry: Afghan Election Affects U.S. Plan

(CBS)  The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told CBS News that President Obama's highly-anticipated decision on U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan hinges on the result of that country's presidential election.

Speaking from Kabul in an interview broadcast on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said, "There's some very fundamental questions that have to be answered about the status of the Afghan government.

"I think this is a moment for President [Hamid] Karzai, frankly, to step up and help to share with the world a better vision for how the government here is going to deliver and be a full partner."

Mr. Obama is considering increasing the number of troops in the country, which after Karzai failed to garner enough votes

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

"I don't see how President Obama can make a decision about the committing of our additional forces or even the further fulfillment of our mission that's here today without an adequate government in place or knowledge about what that government's going to be," Kerry told John Dickerson, host of CBSNews.com's "Washington Unplugged," during the senator's visit to Afghanistan's capital.

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, has requested Mr. Obama send more troops to the country. Kerry spoke with McChrystal during his visit. The senator said winning the war in Afghanistan will rely on more than just sending more soldiers there.

"Counting the numbers of troops is not going to define our success here," Kerry told Dickerson. "There is no military success ultimately to Afghanistan. The Afghans themselves are going to define what happens here and we have to convince ourselves that we have a strategy in place that empowers them to do that and that is realistic in what our expectations are from them and on what schedule."

Success in Afghanistan means making sure the country doesn't revert into a safe haven for al Qaeda, Kerry said.

"We need to deal with the problem of al Qaeda, make sure that they can't have a sanctuary in Afghanistan, and guarantee that we have regional stabilization, in particularly focused on Pakistan," Kerry told Dickerson. "The Afghans themselves will have to deliver, and in whatever they deliver they will create the atmosphere for the civilian sector to be able to deliver. We still have a lot of questions to answer about our capacity to do both of those parts of the mission."

Kerry said the United States can't do it all in Afghanistan and will need widespread support from the Afghan government, no matter who is elected president there.

"What we really need in addition is the government that has the capacity to be able to deliver at a local level as well as do some of the rebuilding of both the national army as well as the police, and then we need a construction, civilian program at a level yet to be determined," Kerry told Dickerson. "I want to know what it's going to take to be able to support the fundamental mission that the president has defined, and I think there are a lot of questions still outstanding about that."

[stn_sage]

When has the U.S. ever cared that the government of the country we're intervening in is beloved 'by the locals'! We haven't, that's ridiculous! The only pertinent matter is, whatever govt is seated allowed us to be there...that's it.

Both Emanuel and Kerry are full of it! They're trying to 'buy time' for Obama to delay his having to make the decision to escalate there!

Mr. Obama is losing credibility with the U.S. public, even his own base want him to take us out of Afghanistan. If he expands Bush's war, he's hurting Dems in elections next year and himself in 2012!

Mr. Obama is straddling the divide between keeping the war going while APPEARING to be working to end it...and the public is being played as 'suckers!'

Mr. Kerry's sudden concern for Afghanistan politics is touching...but where were these concerns EIGHT yrs ago? He also asserts, "there is no military success ultimately to Afghanistan". Then, WHY EXPAND the war?!!
Further, he asserts, 'the Afghans will have to deliver' (for themselves). And, the quicker we get out of there, the sooner they'll be able to do it...for themselves!

Mr. Kerry's remarks convince me WE SHOULDN'T BE THERE! And, I hope the public isn't deceived by Mr. Obama's attempt to expand GWB's Afghanistan War Policy...that's the last thing we need!

[mnbrant]

yeah, last time I heard we had 80k troops headed to Afganistan. This was like a couple days ago? And whats up with that Rev Sun Yung Moon wedding? Is he really Jesus or what?

[zamorin44]

Demonization of Karzai is just an excuse to cover up Obama's indecision on Afghanistan.For this it is not Karzai who pays the price.It is the American soldiers in that godforsaken country.Would everything be all right once Karzai goes?Look what happened in Pakistan when Musharraf was forced out.

[IAmWatchingYou]

I don?t understand this morning?s interviews on Face the Nation. When John Dickerson interviewed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senator John Kerry, he repeatedly asked follow-up questions to get further elaboration on their answers. With Senator John Cornyn, on the other hand, not one follow-up. For example, when Sen. Cornyn condemned Democrats for voting along party lines on health care, he was not asked to explain the times they haven?t all done that, nor why it wasn?t a bad thing that Republicans have much more consistently done the same. Another example was when he was asked about Afghanistan, he noted the war had gone on for eight years, but wasn?t asked why the Republicans, when they were in control during that time, did not work to strengthen the Afghani government and military, and how instead they allowed the Taliban to reestablish their control throughout much of the country. So was Dickerson unprepared, incompetent or biased?

[sjc_1]

I don't think they bother, because the wrong wing will just spin and deflect using tactics taught by the GOP. The opposition will answer the questions, because they want the people to know what they think. The wrong wing is made from believers, do not confuse them with facts nor reasoning.

[Nikos_Retsos]

Hamid Karzai's days are numbered, and he knows that. That is why he has said that he may not accept the results of the re-count. And if he doesn't, he should start counting his days in office, and plan the place of his exile - as Pakistan's Pervez Musharaf did. Can he stay in Afghanistan as an opposition leader? I doubt it. This happen only in democracies that are self-governed, not on a cosmetic democracy governed and funded from an outside government whose forces do whatever they want without consulting it. The Afghan government
is just a pet of the U.S. forces, not a sovereign entity.

Karzai has become disposable because: A) He was imposed on the Afghans by the U.S., as Babrak Karmal was imposed on them by the Soviet Union in 1980, and puppets have never succeeded in Afghanistan's history. B) To compensate for his unpopularity, Karzai allowed local tribal leaders to engage in widespread corruption in
exchange for their support to him. He even admitted that some of his officials might have corrupted the election process to help him - in order to keep their jobs. C) He was caught between the rock and the hard place when he: Complained about the high number of innocent civilians killed by U.S. airstrikes to placate the Afghans, but that enraged the U.S. which usually called the civilians killed as "Talibans" to avoid the global outcry. And after 8 years in office, Karzai is unpopular with Afghans, and he is a non-achiever for
the U.S. Karzai is slated, therefore, to meet Pervez Musharraf's fate -sooner or later, but the "sooner" is already wafting in the air.

Will Dr. Abdullah be better? Well, he was an ally of the Tajik discredited warlord Rashid Dostum whose "Northern Alliance" forces were enlisted by the U.S. to enter Kabul during the U.S. invasion, and he became the first Foreign Minister with karzai. But since the Taliban insurgency is Pashtun, and 42% of Afghans are Pashtun, he is not expected to be able to reach an accord with the Taliban for a stable government in Afghanistan. He would probably serve like Karzai, and allow corruption in lieu of political support from tribal leaders and governors, and he would become disposable after a vain effort to make the Afghans fall in love with the U.S. occupation. History has repeated itself in Afghanistan for 2.400 years,
and it will continue to repeat itself because it will take time for the current occupant of the white house to reach the maturity of Richard Nixon's understanding on the vanity of the Vietnam War. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

[aubfmet]

Kerry sounds dumber every time I hear him.

[BeckieBest]

When was the last time you had something intelligent to say?

[jefleshman]

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said, "There's some very fundamental questions that have to be answered about the status of the Afghan government"
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. Kerry, with all due respect, that same question is being asked of our government? So should we back our service men and women or just wait it out? Do you act or wait to be acted upon? Do you speak for your state or yourself? Do you back the POTUS when he decides what that may be or go forward with your own agenda? Is it in our National Security interest to stay in Afghanistan? Is it in our Nations best interest to stay (We are part of the UN)?

Where do you stand? Or are you going to see where the majority goes and then decide?

Just curious.

[SD92040]

Taking Kerry seriously about military affairs must be tempered by knowing that he has 3 purple hearts. And he never spend an hour in a hospital. His purple hearts are a sham, as is his "Military" experience.