John Kerry: Fear Monger

Democratic extremists tend to continually point to the Rethugs as fear mongering when it comes to discussions of the war on terror. They also love to then point out port security as being nearly non-existent. That, though, isn't fear mongering. Then you get John Kerry having a seizure in the OpinionJournal OpEd over Afghanistan. You can be certain that he's not fear mongering, though I'm not sure how that is much different than the usual political blathering.

If Washington seems to have forgotten Afghanistan, it is clear the Taliban and al Qaeda have not. Less than five years after American troops masterfully toppled the Taliban, the disastrous diversion in Iraq has allowed these radicals the chance to rise again. Time is running out to reverse an unfolding disaster in the war we were right to fight after 9/11.

Funded largely by a flourishing opium trade, a resurgent Taliban effectively controls entire swathes of southern Afghanistan. Roadside bomb attacks have more than doubled this year, and suicide attacks have more than tripled. Britain's commander in Afghanistan recently said that "the intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis."

Al Qaeda is again taking advantage: The recent plot to blow up U.S.-bound jets was reportedly masterminded by an al Qaeda affiliate operating from Afghanistan. The same killers who attacked us on 9/11 are still plotting against America--and they're still holed up in Afghanistan. President Karzai put it simply: "The same enemies that blew up themselves in . . . the twin towers in America are still around." And while President Bush frequently quotes Ayman al-Zawahiri, he hasn't mentioned that on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 al Qaeda's No. 2 described the situation in Afghanistan as "very good."

Time is running out!!! Beware the coming of the end!!! You have to enjoy reading Kerry quoting al-Zawahiri. It almost is reminiscent of Winter-Soldier. Oh my, the enemy says things are hunky-dory so we need to panic. Could it possibly be that the enemy is playing you like the moronic fiddle that you are? I'm certain if Kerry says that al-Zawahiri is telling the truth it must be so.

When did denying al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan cease to be an urgent American priority? Somehow, we ended up with seven times more troops in Iraq--which even the administration now admits had nothing to do with 9/11--than in Afghanistan, where the killers still roam free. Even as the president claimed we are on the offensive against terrorists, Gen. James Jones, the U.S. commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, made an urgent plea for more troops to fight the Taliban. President Karzai has also appealed for more troops and support, and on my trip to Afghanistan this year, he stressed to me the importance of a robust American troop presence. And on Sept. 11 this year, U.S. Col. Michael Harrison noted "more troops would be welcome" in the hunt for bin Laden and his henchmen.

I guess Kerry missed the 20,000 US troops and the NATO led forces. Of course, he still is making the assumption that more feet on the ground will improve the odds. He also seems to have missed that NATO has been having some success in fighting the Taliban groups that periodically pop up. Kerry keeps following the party line that there are never enough troops. One wonders if there is a possibility to satisfy them on the correct manning of a war.

We must also redouble our reconstruction efforts. The Taliban's resurgence comes as no surprise when 40% of the population is unemployed and 90% lack regular electricity. As Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry recently said, "wherever the road ends, that's where the Taliban starts." That's why our generals are asking for more reconstruction funds to win over the local population. Yet this administration has appropriated nearly four times more in reconstruction funds for Iraq than Afghanistan--and actually cut Afghan aid by 30% this year. We need to substantially increase development aid and take advantage of the improved security provided by additional troops to ensure that reconstruction efforts reach the remote villages where the Taliban finds support. We must ensure that the elected government in Kabul, helped by the U.S.--not the Taliban, helped by al Qaeda--rebuilds Afghanistan.

90% lack regular electricity? Is this due to damage from the original conflict with the Taliban, or is it just that they've never had regular electricity? The term "reconstruction" strikes me as deceptive. Many of the areas that are being discussed have never had regular roads as we know them, nor electricity. No doubt development aid would help for a country where the easiest way to make money is by growing opium poppies. But this isn't "reconstruction" by any sense of that word.

Finally, we must use economic leverage to ensure the Taliban no longer finds sanctuary and recruits in Pakistan. Last year we gave Pakistan only $300 million in economic support, about what we spend in a day in Iraq. We need to give more, in development funds earmarked for specific projects that help undermine radicals, and demand more in return from the Musharraf government. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The U.S. must not cut and run from the real front line in the war on terror. We must recommit to victory in Afghanistan.

I understand that Musharraf has been a fairly good ally against the terrorists and Taliban. I'm uncertain as to how much we should bolster him and his present military "presidency". He did take over in a coup from a corrupt democratic regime, but there doesn't appear to be any movement toward moving back to democracy. Assisting Pakistan would be good in maintaining an ally, but Musharraf may end up being one of the dictator types that we bolster to our later consternation.

So what is Kerry really up to with this OpEd? God knows. I am highly dubious that he'll get a second shot at the Whitehouse. But I suppose he has nothing to lose by posturing as he has been.