Reply #2: I decided to respond to this with a comment

[karynnj]

Rather than go after the huge number of negative spins, I opted to obliquely attack the article by showing a small portion of what he completely ignored. ie a dozen hearings, various opeds, and a major speech, which fortunately the Boston Globe did an excellent oped on. I figured it was both more relevant to the supposed topic Kerry's position on Afghanistan and because it shows a stunning lack of serious, objective analysis given this was a major cover story.

Here's what I wrote - unfortunately, they remove the paragraph spacing.

This detailed article curiously ignored all the substantive speeches Senator Kerry gave on Afghanistan and the dozen or so oversight hearings he has had. In particular, Kerry held 4 incredible, well structured hearings in fall 2009, when Obama was considering what his path forward would be. In one the hearings, in his opening comments, Senator Lugar spoke of frustration that no administration people were willing to testify. It was right that Kerry scheduled the hearings and did the oversight that no one just reading this article were know of. (link to the hearing on Afghanistan - http://foreign.senate.gov/search/?q=Afghanistan&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fforeign.senate.gov%2Fhearings&x=24&y=7

As those hearings progressed, Kerry also wrote op-eds based on his view of what should be done. .Kerry also gave a detailed speech before the Council of Foreign Relations in November, 2009 that gave his recommendation before Obama announced the path he was taking. Here is a link to the speech as delivered - http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=8ad4653c-a11c-40c2-ab71-e01ceba481c3 The Boston Globe summarized it in their op-ed here - http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/04/in_afghanistan_kerry_keeps_us_goals_modest/

From the BG article, Kerry's position is described as:

"Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, delivered a major speech last week summarizing his own analysis of the issue and offering advice about the president’s choices. The judgments are nuanced, but no more so than the realities.

On the bottom line question - yes or no on McChrystal’s request - Kerry says no. . . .
Kerry’s analysis begins with the most important consideration: US national interests. What should Americans care about here? What matters more than other things that matter? Kerry says: Pakistan - not Afghanistan. His focal question about Afghanistan is how developments there impact Pakistan. Over the past months he has led efforts to spotlight the anomaly that allocates 30 times more American time and resources to Afghanistan when our much larger interests lie in Pakistan. Thanks to his efforts with Senator Richard Lugar, the United States has committed $7½ billion over five years to help stabilize this nuclear-armed nation at risk of becoming the “epicenter of extremism in the world.’’

Second, what are America’s vital interests in Afghanistan? Kerry answers that it is to “prevent the Taliban - with their long-standing ties to Al Qaeda - from once again providing terrorists with an unfettered Afghan safe haven.’’ Period. . . .
Third, he defines success as “the ability to empower and transfer responsibility to Afghans as rapidly as possible and achieve a sufficient level of stability to ensure that we can leave behind an Afghanistan that is not controlled by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.’’ He does not say an Afghanistan in which some Taliban are not ruling in some areas.

Fourth, he rejects “all-in’’ counterinsurgency. In its place he recommends “smart counterinsurgency,’’ . .

Now look at what you describe as his "new" position, which you describe as echoing Biden.

".Asked about this, Kerry responds, “What I feel particularly is the responsibility here to get this right. I believe the adjustments we have made have significantly altered the course that we’re on there—and can help us avoid the potential of the word ‘mistake’ being attached to their endeavor.” But when I asked him directly, “Do you feel reasonably confident that no young Americans are being sent needlessly to their deaths?” he began to sound like someone who is still staying at arm’s length from the Petraeus strategy. “What’s very clear to me is that we’re not prepared financially, politically, and militarily to do a nationwide counterinsurgency effort, or even a very significant one,” he says, now echoing Biden. “So I think you have to make certain you’re not putting these folks in a less-than-achievable position.” Pressed further, he acknowledged that he is “very close” to Biden’s thinking, in terms of the need to focus on Pakistan, to reduce the U.S. “footprint,” and to accept that the al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan has been “overblown.

What I see is Kerry is echoing ... himself - from the 2009 hearings and the CFR speech. Biden, Reed and Kerry were all not advocating for the surge supported by Gates and Clinton.As to the concern being Pakistan - one entire hearing from fall 2009 was on the impact on Pakistan.

The fact is that here, as on Iraq, it was not that Kerry made major changes in his position - it is the media's desire to classify every one as "no" or "yes" when there are millions of positions in between.