On Afghan war, pick a side

“Politics,’’ complained Kerry in a recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, “has reduced an extraordinarily complex country in an extraordinarily complex region and a difficult mission to a simple, headline-ready ‘yes or no’ on troop numbers.’’

Kerry is rightfully basking in the afterglow of praise that came with getting Afghan President Hamid Karzai to accept a runoff election after Karzai’s Aug. 20 victory was found to be the result of widespread voter fraud.

But Kerry is not secretary of state. He is not charged with advancing a foreign policy agenda for President Obama. With the recent death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Kerry is now the senior senator from Massachusetts. He can straddle for only so long.

“There are no more important votes that a senator makes than on issues of war and peace,’’ wrote Kennedy, in “True Compass’’, the autobiography published after his death.

In 2002, Kennedy proudly voted against authorizing the Iraq invasion. Kerry, contemplating a run for president, voted for it - and then equivocated about it afterward. Beyond the political cost to Kerry’s presidential campaign, his overly nuanced position also helped enable a war.

Even now, though, nuance lives on.

Kerry is for the war in Afghanistan, but against the major troop increase proposed by General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in the region. In his recent speech, Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned that a major US troop pullout could trigger civil war in Afghanistan. He doesn’t endorse a small-scale counter-terror campaign as proposed by Vice President Joe Biden, and he won’t endorse a major military increase, arguing that McChrystal’s plan goes too far.

As for the ultimate mission in Afghanistan, Kerry said, “I define 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 agrees the status quo is not producing this result. Yet he rejects every concrete alternative and instead he endorses a vague strategy - “a smart counter-insurgency’’ - that might require more troops.

Consider Kerry’s elaborate positioning in light of the clarity expressed by Matthew Hoh, a former Marine who fought in Iraq and recently quit a diplomatic post in Afghanistan.

“I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan,’’ wrote Hoh in a letter of resignation that was first reported by the Washington Post. “I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.’’

Added Hoh, the first US official known to have quit in protest of the war: “To put it simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued US casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year-old civil war.’’

Hoh, in a word, said “no.’’

Ultimately, Obama, Kerry and Congress must pick a side, too. Like it or not, “yes or no’’ is what the next step for America comes down to.

Yes, there is a clear mission in Afghanistan the United States can accomplish; or, no, there isn’t.

Yes, more troops are the difference between success and failure; or, no, they aren’t.

As they consider their options, the nation’s deciders might apply the test that Kennedy put forth in “True Compass’’. These six principles, wrote Kennedy, “were my guiding arguments’’:

A war must have a just cause, confronting a danger that is beyond question.

It must be declared by a legitimate authority acting on behalf of the people.

It must be driven by the right intention, not ulterior, self-interested motives.

It must be a last resort.

It must be proportional, so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good achieved.

It must have a reasonable chance of success.

On matters of war and peace, diplomats negotiate. Presidents and lawmakers choose a side. In the end, there is no room for maybe.

Joan Vennochi’s e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.