The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election

July 13, 2004

Kerry | Sandy Berger On Kerry ForPol

The Hill has released portions of a Bisnow interview with key Kerry policy advisor and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. Here’s the plug:

In a wide-ranging and exclusive interview with Bisnow on Business, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, now a chief foreign policy adviser to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, says, in answer to a question about how long he can imagine a “substantial U.S. force presence” in Iraq: “I can certainly imagine us having a force there in three years. I hope it will be a smaller force.”
Berger answers what Kerry would do differently from what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq today; whether the premises for invading Iraq were valid; whether Berger thinks the U.S. is better off for having invaded Iraq; whether Iraq is winnable or whether the U.S. should just cut its losses; who is to blame for inaccurate information about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the hope U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators; whether Saddam was really a threat to the U.S.; what diversion the war has caused of foreign policy attention and assets elsewhere; whether the U.S. is currently making progress in Iraq; how many additional troops may be needed; whether we need a draft; whether he would use the term “incompetence” in describing execution of post-war planning; and whether he thinks John Edwards has adequate national security experience.

Read it here.

Posted by Alan at July 13, 2004 06:59 AM | TrackBack

Comments

…so let me get this “we had a lot of time”;that’s a pretty bold statement.Wonder in the scheme of things if obl had not been put on the defensive around the world, what terrorist plots would have been carried out.GWB told us there would be overt and covert operations; so the overt is obvious..one can only hope the covert is having the same success..

Posted by: Rob_NC at July 13, 2004 09:05 AM

“I think there’s been no question that there’s been some degradation of our focus on what I think is the clear and present danger to the United States, which is the Islamic radicals who seek to do grievous harm to Americans.”

So, islamic radicals are the big danger to the US, does that mean we should invade Iran, the biggest source of radical islam in the world?

Are we better off for having invaded Iraq? “I don’t think we’re safer for having invaded Iraq…I think over the long term Saddam constituted a threat. I think we would have had to deal with him at some point, but Iraq was not a terrorist problem before we invaded. Because of the nature of our invasion, the unilateral invasion and essentially unilateral occupation, Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists from around the world, so I don’t think we’re safer. I think the jury is out as to whether we’ll be better off.”

Ignoring the erronious charge of “unilateralism”,
should we have waited till Saddam had rebuilt all his WMDs, improved his army, and dispatched terrorists to attack the US, or attack while Saddam was at the nadir of his power? Furthermore, by attracting terrorists the world over to Iraq, rather then leave them in their native countries to plan attacks, we have made the world more dangerous? The biggest problem with terrorism is in confronting it with our superior armed forces. By attracting terrorists to Iraq, we make it easier to kill them.

Posted by: Brian at July 13, 2004 10:00 AM

Yes, Brian you point out the shocking lack of strategic thinking in Mr Berger’s comments. If islamic radicals are a clear and present danger, then Iran and Syria are major issues.

Now let’s look at the strategic situation. We have troops on two of Iran’s borders and Syria is stuck between US and the Israelis.

To me Berger is, like most Democrats, trying to have it both ways. but his logic is slow flawed and his strategic thinking so sadly lacking that it all just boils down to a gussied up version of the left’s party line.

Posted by: skip at July 13, 2004 10:31 AM

Berger sounds like he’s trying to come across as a moderate, perhaps he’s trolling for a job in the (god forbid) Kerry Administration?

The left likes to have this both ways — we’re not “focused” on the folks that they’d prefer to “focus” on, usually Iran and North Korea.

I don’t remember The Clinton administration being so tough on these guys back then — in fact, I seem to remember something about light water reactors and Madeleine Albright sipping champagne with Kim Jong Il.

Hmm . . .

Posted by: DWC at July 13, 2004 11:04 AM

“Furthermore, by attracting terrorists the world over to Iraq, rather then leave them in their native countries to plan attacks, we have made the world more dangerous? The biggest problem with terrorism is in confronting it with our superior armed forces. By attracting terrorists to Iraq, we make it easier to kill them.”

Brian,

I disagree with you. Iraqi being a magnet for terrorism is a cost of the invasion, not a benefit.

There is a limited pool of US soldiers in Iraq, as of now, there is no lack of source of young or old Arabs who is drawn to the fight for whatever reason.

What we will see from those young recruits are a new generation of battle hardened terrorists that will cause trouble if they were not properly handled. Egypt had a bitter experience with their Mujaheddin from the Afghan war where these veterans performed a series of horrific terrorist attacks in the country.

The US doesn’t always execute its counter-insurgency plan properly. Take a look at Fallujah Offensive, which by now is acknowledged as a failure because that area is a no-go zone for US Marines.

One casualty in our side is a negative. This is not the case in our enemy for every death can be used as another tools for recruitment.

Posted by: Dody Gunawinata at July 13, 2004 01:07 PM

Dody, I have to agree with Brian, foreign fighters getting killed in Iraq is a good thing overall.

Turning off the terrorist factories is vital long term but short term we’ve got to eliminate the existing thugs.

The situation in Iraq will be a watershed no matter how one views the denoument. Everyone who is a party to this has to examine it and this examination will impact thinking for years to come.

To really “handle” the next generation we need to offer a viable option to the hate of the islamofascists.

Posted by: skip at July 13, 2004 02:29 PM

Quite frankly I think Senator Kerry made a right choice by using an expertise and wide experience of Samuel R. Berger by employing him as key policy advisor. Really, after all the blunders Mr. Berger was responsible for (read for instance the Cox Select Committee Report - regarding illegal technology transfer from the USA to China; or US Senate Campaign Finance Hearings), we have another proof of Mr. Berger’s outstanding skills. This time for stealing classified memos. Bravo! It looks like a very good team to me. Former anti-war protester, successful medical malpractice lawyer and a skillful … ghmmm… let’s stay politically correct, right?

Posted by: Walter von Hartmann at July 20, 2004 01:38 AM