More

John Kerry: Uptick In Iraq Violence Was Expected, Could Get Worse

First Posted: 05/29/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:15 PM ET

Kerry

A recent uptick in violence in Iraq was expected and could get worse as the country seeks to reconcile itself politically after years of bitter sectarian conflict, according to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Kerry insisted that the United States' decision to withdraw troops from Iraq remained fundamentally correct and should not be revisited. But he cautioned that the early results of these troop withdrawals -- dictated in large part by the Status of Forces Agreement between the two countries -- would likely not be pretty.

"I think there is probably going to be an increase in violence because they have not resolved their political issues," said Kerry. "That doesn't mean we shouldn't be changing our posture there. It is time for the Iraqis to stand up and take charge. But there will undoubtedly be some violence because political reconciliation that we have long said was necessary has never been achieved."

The remarks were made last Friday as Iraq witnessed a new wave of violence -- the largest since Barack Obama took office -- that claimed roughly 150 lives. The White House, like Kerry, has cited quick political progress in Iraq (pointing to elections that will be held this year) as an antidote for the rise in attacks. "The status of forces agreement demonstrates that we are not going to... have 147,000 or 145,000 troops there for eternity," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, "so that progress has to be made."

The recent suggestion to keep some troops in Mosul to help quell the violence was opposed by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

Troop levels in Iraq weren't the only aspect of military engagement that Kerry discussed in sensitive terms. The Massachusetts Democrat acknowledged concerns over increased U.S. engagement in Afghanistan, saying that the recent testimony of an Afghan veteran opposing the dispatch of 17,000 additional troops to that theater mirrored, in some ways, the protests he famously made of Vietnam.

"There are similarities," he said. "There are differences, too. And the differences are as important as some of the similarities... I think Corporal Reyes [the objecting Afghan war vet] very appropriately put his finger on the dilemma on conducting operations in a way that doesn't waste our effort and also wind up being counterproductive -- where you wind up creating more insurgents and terrorists and people who don't like you because of what is happening to their communities. At the same time, the others showed maybe a way forward if you are more thoughtful and sensitive in conducting your mission."

Asked for his biggest concern when it came to Afghanistan, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee replied: "whether we have lost so much time and good will that we are just behind the point [of turning this around]."

Considered at one point to be a candidate for Secretary of State, Kerry has instead managed to make an imprint on Obama's foreign policy from his perch atop the foreign relations committee. On the issue of the day, his support for an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's detainee interrogation techniques could impact whether such investigations actually taking place. "I think it is a mistake to do it in Congress," he says. "I think it should be done by some quiet and eminent person [who will] conduct an investigation and release a report on it."

On a broader level, Kerry has been a voice of cautious (or realistic) support for the White House's policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, pushing the need for improved governance in the former and greater diplomatic and economic resources in the latter.

His viewpoint of counter-terrorism operations, in particular, has been meticulously detailed since he laid out the policy proposal way back during the dog days of the 2008 presidential campaign. The outline is similar to that which Kerry advocated during the '04 election and for which he was ridiculed by his GOP opponents. But with the public of a slightly different political mindset when it comes to counter-terrorism operations, an approach that doesn't lean entirely on the military but pushes for better intelligence and a stronger law enforcement component is no longer derided as insufficiently macho.

"Those statements were true then and they were true today," Kerry said of this once-lambasted call to make terrorism more of a law enforcement issue. "The people who fought it displayed the kind of ignorance and arrogance of our policy that has gotten us into a lot of trouble. The fact is had they been more honest about it rather than exploiting the war, we would be in a better place today. So I stand by my comments. A military component and military actions are needed at times. But the key to being victorious is to have the best intelligence in the world."


Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

A recent uptick in violence in Iraq was expected and could get worse as the country seeks to reconcile itself politically after years of bitter sectarian conflict, according to Senate Foreign Relation...
A recent uptick in violence in Iraq was expected and could get worse as the country seeks to reconcile itself politically after years of bitter sectarian conflict, according to Senate Foreign Relation...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 204
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BobWills
Fine Arts Painter/Musician
08:25 PM on 04/28/2009
"There were two stark lessons in the history of the 20th century: no nation that launched a war against another sovereign nation ever won. And no nationalist-based insurgency against a foreign occupation ultimately succeeded."
Buda's wagon ; a breif history of the car bomb.
06:09 PM on 04/28/2009
Sam,

Is there any way to get a full transcript of your interview with John Kerry? I would be most interested in reading it. Thanks.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:59 PM on 04/28/2009
I read a article in the guardian dated 20 march 2008 By Hans Blix head weapons inspector in Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 before Bush's invasion. He said they made 700 inspections at 500 different sites and did'nt find any WMD's, I never heard Bush ever tell the American people that ,and if he did would they have wanted to invade Iraq?, All I remember hearing about was curveball, Alumunum tubes, mushroom clouds and him standing there holding up forged uranium document.
05:50 PM on 04/28/2009
To consolidate their power, the Shiites will continue to be less than completely fair with the Sunnis. This is unfortunate, but there is nothing the US can or should do about it. Time to get all American military forces out of Iraq.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:26 PM on 04/28/2009
Of course violence is to be expected Mr. Kerry. But I shouldn't have to remind you, it's been 6 full years of violence now. It didn't stop after our "liberation" and it's not stopping now. You have to realize that most likely the people want nothing more than 2 thing.

1. To bring an end to the illegal occupation of their country by foreign forces.
2. To use the same self-determination we used in 1776, to determine their own course and their own vision of democracy.

And you know what? I don't blame them one bit. And in the end, it's their country, society and way of life. If they fail, that's got nothing to do with us. But how do you judge failure of someone else's system when it is so alien to your own? We cannot ever judge them by our standards. That's the one big mistake we are making in this.
07:43 PM on 04/28/2009
Senator Kerry called for no permanent bases in the first debate with Bush in 2004. He also spoke of the need to get the "American face" off the war and the need to quickly use allies in teh region to stabalize Iraq and get out. He used the word "occupation" in his October 2005 "Path Forward" speech - one of the first, if not the first mainstream politician to do so. At that time, he again called on Bush to state that we have no long term interest in staying in Iraq and that we needed to make it clear that we wanted no permanent bases, the building of which would be taken as an occupation by the Iraqis.

You do realize that he and Russ Feingold's Kerry/Feingold was a full blown exit plan - including diplomacy and a deadline. All the main Democrats running moved to what were versions of it. Obama's and clinton's both extended the deadline. Senator Kerry is well aware of the fact that Bush did everything wrong - he has said that since the invasion - which he termed not a war of last resort.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:47 PM on 04/28/2009
Yep, Kerry has attempted to do alot of good things, right things and honorable things. Just a shame that his party leadership wouldn't back him on any of it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:02 PM on 04/28/2009
I imagine that Royal Dutch Shell's office in Baghdad, as well as the "the 5 Sisters of Big Oil's" control of the wells in the Western Sands are getting a little "noivous". Since that's what IRAQ was all about to begin with, George's Oil Buddies and Dick's Corporate Cousins, a little saber rattling RPG launching should come as no surprise. After all Sada was the only reason they didn't whack-out their civil war earlier.
Kerry is right, just like when we left Saigon, there will be a "adjustment period" and then the ruling party, (aka winners of take all battle for Allah's Turf) will prevail and make a new oil deal with us. Wait! That means we'll lose control. That can't happen! We MUST protect the innocents, (errrrrrr- the oil). The O.D.O. Overseas Drilling Operation.
04:30 PM on 04/28/2009
I only hope the withdrawal of US Forces in Iraq are more professional than the Vietnam rout... Still, I'll take any withdrawal we can get.... Just Get Us The Hell Out Of The ME!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Manx
04:29 PM on 04/28/2009
Members of the Main Stream Media have been parroting the words of John McCain about the "success of the surge," as if that was the last word on Iraq. When we leave the "surge" will be irrelevant. We can't measure the success or failure of Iraq until we leave.
04:50 PM on 04/28/2009
It was just a surge of bribe money anyway.
05:19 PM on 04/28/2009
What's your point? How do you think we gather most of our intelligence around the world?

Grow up.
06:53 PM on 04/28/2009
The ultimate surge will occure when GI Joe is gone. It will be a tsunami of sorts on the side of Allah and his followers. If a "professional" military man like McCan't doesn't understand, the US wasted a lot of money on his education at Annapolis. But yes, get our troops out now, no matter the outcome. This war was lost before it started. We left a modern and well equiped army in Vietnam when our troops came home. 2 years later that army was lost and scared of the North. It will happen again.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:17 PM on 04/28/2009
George Bush said we fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in the United States, Osama Bin Ladin said we fight the United States in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in Afghanistan, & pakistan, --- You better believe they don't want us in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
03:41 PM on 04/28/2009
Ron Paul: US Foreign Policy has not changed

"The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment toward us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of reevaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. Fifty thousand troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:09 PM on 04/28/2009
Soori,...excellent post, closer to the truth.
08:54 PM on 04/28/2009
it's called US exceptionalism. If the US does it it's fine no matter how horrendous. Anyone else does anything they get bombed. It's based on the perception of US morals and ethics being far superior to anyone eles regardless of how immoral or unethical. Tort ure is a good example. O carries on the tradition by trying to exempt your warc rimin als from justice.
photo
Chopin
Multiply the truth. Speak truth through power.
03:30 PM on 04/28/2009
A brutally honest and dispassionate analysis of this 8 years involvement in Iraq would arrive at the inescapable conclusion that it is essentially a colonial occupation in a distant land with rich oil resources, period. There is no rational way to explain the presense of the biggest fortress-like embassy in a dessert country. It is no different from Russian occupation of Afghanistan, or French occupation of Algeria, or French and American occupation of Vietnam. They all came to bitter violent ends, because they shouldn't be there..
03:14 PM on 04/28/2009
The Obama "withdrawal" plan was a PR maneuver from the start. Kerry's statement is a trial balloon for an eventual "necessity" to keep a substantial number of U.S. troops there indefinitely. SURPRISE!

These Beltway subterfuges unfold like clockwork--meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Don't blame me--I voted for Nader, who saw exactly what Obama was up to and tried to warn all the deluded, purblind liberals who were expecting him to usher in a new Millennium despite the fact that his actual policy positions, when scrutinized closely, did not--and do not--differ that sharply from Bush's.

And what did Nader get in return for being right . . .AGAIN? Further marginalization among the Volvo-driving "left": The Nation magazine, many of the writers on this site, the PDA crowd, etc.

This is the Kafkaesque world of American politics, where BS is king and Truth is a tattered outcast.
07:51 PM on 04/28/2009
That is NOT what Kerry said. By the way, Nader actually liked Kerry and respected him and said so in 2004 - even as he ran against him, claiming that helped him as he was attacking Bush.
08:18 PM on 04/28/2009
Washington politicians speak in codes. Kerry is preparing the way for a "reluctant" conclusion on the part of mainstream Dems that the U.S. has to stay in Iraq indefinitely. You can bank it. Do you think these guys wouid ever state such a thing outright? Everything is conveyed by doubletalk, circumlocution, and hints.

Nader did not "like" Kerry politically. If he had had any confidence in Kerry's political positions, he would have run against him. Kerry ran as a prowar candidate--remember during the debates, when a questioner asked him if he thought the war was a mistake? Kerry answered, "No.' NO--not a mistake. Get it?

Kerry, like Obama, is a phony through and through--a corporate shill with the thinnest veneer of progressive rhetoric. Kerry has been voting for all the Iraq war appropriations under Bush. He has voted for every appropriation for the bloated military budget. He voted for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which set the stage for the current financial meltdown. He has supported WTO/NAFTA, which have hollowed out this country's industrial base. He is opposed to single-payer Medicare for all health care, which is the only serious solution to the ballooning medical costs and lack of coverage for 50 million Americans.

As long as you place personal loyalty over a serious examination of the issues, you will be getting played for a sucker by the financial/corporate elite that owns the major politicians of both the Republicans and Democrats.
03:12 PM on 04/28/2009
This phony war/ocupation is still costing $10 billion a month with no end. We have spent nearly $600 billion with more to be spent, killing tens of thousands, displacing millions from their homes and destroying valuable infrastrcuture. Bush has led us into a gigantic trap in Iraq. First it was the lies, deceit and chicanery that got us into the war, then it was mismanged with no planning or strategy, improper tactics, inadequate logistics and no way to exit. The history, culture and religious fundamentalism that rules any other thought or consideration in the Middle East has been a matter of common knowledge to the enlightened of the world since studies were made of the region. It is too bad that Bush and his republican cronies never developed their intellectual capacities beyond "My Pet Goat". Ignorance and folly got us into this mess, to get out of it is not ignorance and folly, but a genuine necessity.
03:03 PM on 04/28/2009
From Lewis Black:

"John Kerry losing to Bush is like a normal person losing the Special Olympics"
photo
Clarabell
If we only had a "free" press!
03:08 PM on 04/28/2009
But what does it say about the American voter?
03:12 PM on 04/28/2009
that as referees they'd have thrown the contest to the special guy because he seemed more like one of them?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kendraro
deadhead echelon peacenik mom to Marley the awesom
03:23 PM on 04/28/2009
stupid, clueless, gullible, pacified, distracted, complacent.....
02:55 PM on 04/28/2009
.
Iraq will end up in a stagnant status of Shiite/Sunni civil war struggle for power
regardless if we leave tomorrow or twenty years from tomorrow-
It makes no difference. This consideration should not keep US engaged.

We should only be thankful that these factions will choose to wage holy war against each other
rather than unite and join forces with Al Qaida in concerted actions against US.
.
03:59 PM on 04/28/2009
"Iraq will end up in a stagnant status of Shiite/Sunni civil war struggle for power
regardless if we leave tomorrow or twenty years from tomorrow"

Which is actually a good thing; provided it doesn't interfere with their production and sale of oil. A destabilized Iraq too embroiled in an internecine war to worry about the US would probably be the only actual security gain achieved by Bush.