SoS Clinton: US has no long-term stake in Afghanistan

[bigtree]

(AFP) 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON —

"We're not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear," (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) told ABC news.

"We agree that our goal here is to defeat Al-Qaeda. That has been a clear goal and a mission from the president ever since he made his commitment of additional troops back in the spring."

"And we understand that the Afghans themselves need help in order to defend themselves against the Taliban. Those are mutually reinforcing missions but our highest obligation is to the American people," she said.

"Now we believe that President Karzai and his government can do better. We've delivered that message," she said.

"But we have no illusions. This is not the prior days when people would come on your show and talk about how we were going to help the Afghans build a modern democracy and build a more functioning state and do all these wonderful things," Clinton said.

"That could happen but our primary focus is on the security of the United States of America. How do we protect and defend against future attacks?

"We do not want to see Afghanistan return to being a safe haven and a staging platform for terrorism as it was before. That is what is driving the president to make the best decision he can make."

read : http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hvQd01iOVUxZF9x40SLcp-jn_QcA



"We're going to be doing what we can to create an atmosphere in which the blood and treasure that the United States has committed to Afghanistan can be justified and can produce the kind of results that we're looking for," Clinton said in an interview with ABC News from Singapore.

"We've delivered that message. Now that the (Afghan) election is finally over, we're looking to see tangible evidence that the government, led by the president but going all the way down to the local level, will be more responsive to the needs of the people," Clinton told ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" show.

Clinton said she had made it very clear, for example, that the United States would not provide civilian aid to Afghanistan's government unless there was "certification" that it went through ministries that could be held accountable.

Washington also expected there to be a major crimes tribunal and an anti-corruption commission established, Clinton said.

"There does have to be actions by the government of Afghanistan against those who have taken advantage of the money that has poured into Afghanistan in the last eight years so that we can better track it and we can have actions taken that demonstrate there's no impunity for those who are corrupt," she said.

read: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/11/15/news/news-us-afghanistan-usa-clinton.html?pagewanted=print

[Junkdrawer]

1. Long-term stake? Heaven Forfend! Now, if we happen to stay and build...

long term military bases, well, it would just be a coincidence.

[bigtree]

4. the military bases

. . . (though I strongly oppose them) would be more in line with the stated 'national security' goals she and the president outlined than the defense of Karzai's corrupt regime. There is a wide disconnect between the two aspirations, even though the Secretary insists, "Those are mutually reinforcing missions."

[hobbit709]

2. Does that mean the oil companies have given up on the pipeline?

[Junkdrawer]

3. Oh, and did you know we fund the Taliban?

As U.S. Ambassador Casts Doubt on Troop Increase in Afghanistan, New Report Reveals U.S. Indirectly Funding the Taliban

In a last-minute dissent ahead of a critical war cabinet meeting on escalating the Afghan war, U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry has cast doubt on a troop escalation until the Afghan government can address corruption and other internal problems. Meanwhile, a report reveals how the US government is financing the very same insurgent forces in Afghanistan that American and NATO soldiers are fighting. Investigative journalist Aram Roston traces how the Pentagon’s civilian contractors in Afghanistan end up paying insurgent groups to protect American supply routes from attack.

The U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan is warning against sending more troops to fight in the Afghan war. In a last-minute dissent, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent two cables this week casting doubt on a troop escalation until the Afghan government can address corruption and other internal problems.

Well today we turn to a new report that reveals how the US government is financing the very same insurgent forces in Afghanistan that American and NATO soldiers are fighting.
“How the US Funds the Taliban” is the cover story of the latest issue of the Nation magazine.

Investigative journalist Aram Roston traces how the Pentagon’s civilian contractors in Afghanistan end up paying insurgent groups to protect American supply routes from attack. The practice of buying the Taliban’s protection is not a secret. US military officials in Kabul told Roston that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon"s logistics contracts consists of payments to the Taliban.

That translates into millions of dollars being funneled to the Taliban. This summer, anticipating a surge of US troops, the military expanded its trucking contracts in Afghanistan by 600 percent to a total of over two billion dollars.

Well, Aram Roston joins us now here in the firehouse studio. He"s the author of the book “The man who pushed America to War: The Life, Adventures, and Obsessions of Ahmad Chalabi.” His latest piece “How the US Funds the Taliban” was supported by the investigative fund at the Nation institute.

...

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/12/taliban

[bigtree]

5. most of the NATO forces are compelled to do this

Gareth Porter, in his excellent report on these payments to Afghan warlords writes:

The revelation by the New York Times Wednesday that Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, has long been on the payroll of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg of heavy dependence by U.S. and NATO counterinsurgency forces on Afghan warlords for security, according to a recently published report and investigations by Australian and Canadian journalists.

U.S. and other NATO military contingents operating in the provinces of Afghanistan's predominantly Pashtun south and east have been hiring private militias controlled by Afghan warlords, according to these sources, to provide security for their forward operating bases and other bases and to guard convoys.

A report published by the Center on International Cooperation at New York University in September notes that U.S. and NATO contingents have frequently hired security providers that are covertly owned by warlords who have "ready-made" private militias which compete with state institutions for power . . .

Two anonymous United Nations sources cited in the report estimate that 1,000 to 1,500 unregistered armed security groups have been "employed, trained, and armed by ISAF" and "Coalition Forces" for security services. As many as 120,000 armed individuals are estimated by the U.N. sources to belong to about 5,000 private militias in Afghanistan.

read more: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49056

[TwilightGardener]

6. We paid the would-be Sunni insurgents in Iraq to stop attacking us and

start snitching on each other. Not shocking that we're doing the same stuff in Afghanistan.

[Junkdrawer]

7. We're buying protection from the same groups we're ostensibly fighting....

Very different.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Short version: "We're playing political CYA until we can get out of a lost war."

[paulk]

9. I wonder if this statement

doesn't signal a fundamental change in the approach the Obama administration is taking in Afghanistan.

[bigtree]

11. we'll see

. . . the most important element is missing: The president's own prescription for the way forward and whether it has the resources, the strategic soundness, and is truly in our nation's interest (both in terms of the sacrifices and whatever national security goals he's declaring).

[paulk]

13. Obama's lack of leadership on this issue has been frustrating

I opposed the initial invasion of Afghanistan because I was afraid the Bush administration would just blow the place up and leave - which is exactly what happened. That said, I haven't been averse to the idea of putting more resources into Afghanistan, though it needs to be defined what, exactly, that means. That's where Obama is failing - as you say - we need his prescription for the way forward.

I do think that recognition of the fact that we can't bring democracy to that place and that aid has to be accounted for are steps in the right direction.

[bigtree]

15. I'm not as concerned with his delay as some

. . . but I am anxious to see the plan for what I anticipate will be a re-focus on his 'goal' of 'defeating al-Qaeda' and how that relates to his defense of Kabul with American troops. I anticipate some kind of solidifying of the NATO forces' stance on the southern border, but I'm concerned about whatever military action across the border into Pakistan that might facilitate.

[karynnj]

17. I think he will announce that when he returns

I think we both will agree that Obama needs to have a very serious talk with the country that outlines the mission, defends it versus alternatives, then defines the policy and explains why it fits the mission best, converts that to troop and material needs, and finally gives some perspective on the "off ramps". (It was weird how "off ramps" seems to be the new "exit strategy".)

Clinton's comments suggest that this will happen as otherwise it is not clear why she would emphasize "testing assumptions". This may well be the speech that determines, more than any other, what the Obama Presidency becomes.

[bigtree]

18. well said

I agree that his decision on the future regarding U.S. troops and Afghanistan (and how effectively he explains and persuades) will define his presidency, if for no other reason, because so many of our critical and human resources are invested and at stake in that policy decision.

[karynnj]

12. I think it does

The biggest clues are:

Her comment strongly defending Obama's process of "testing all the underlying assumptions". She is, as an official Obama spokesperson - the top foreign policy spokesperson, building on the case that Kerry has been laying out in various op-eds and 4 excellent SFRC hearings, that not having good assumptions doomed our Vietnam effort and needed to be done to assure that our soldiers have a policy that has a reasonable chance of success. Now, if Obama were to being leaning to taking McChrystal's advice, there would be less need for this than if the policy was changing. (You have to credit them here - it was better to have an outsider making that case in September, now it is great that they themselves are using it as a defense of whatever policy comes out as having been well examined and studied - including the downsides. Kerry with the SFRC was the obvious person to that then and it was his job to provide oversight.)

The other clue is that she reiterated - as Obama, Biden, Kerry, Reed, and I think Levin have said the goal is no safe haven for AQ and not destabilizing Pakistan. She hedged a bit on a democracy - saying it could happen, but was not a goal.

Both of these are major shifts in Clinton's own comments. This could be that she personally has shifted or more likely that the administration has (with or without her personal agreement).

[karynnj]

10. This is no different than the statements Kerry has made since September

In fact the strongest comment she made was in defending the process Obama is taking to make the decision - "testing the assumptions" That phrase, which is not obvious or generic, is language Kerry used in op-ed and in defining the purpose of his set of four hearings. At the time, it was said that it was designed to give Obama cover in not immediately agreeing to give McChrystal what he wanted.

The significance here is Clinton, who had favored more of a nation building agenda in her comments and who backed something close to McChrystal's plan here was arguing that the process should lend credibility to whatever Obama chooses. To me this signals that Obama will decide on something different than McChrystal favored in both the number of troops and the policy. This also signals that Obama may be listening to Kerry, Emmanuel, and Biden as much or more than to Gates, Clinton, and McChrystal.

Is your positive view of this versus the negative view you had of Kerry's similar position, because you see Clinton shifting in the direction you want compared to Kerry, who listed the very same goals and was more explicit that we did not seek to make them a thriving democracy, taking the same position that he had since the beginning of the year when he cautioned Clinton on making sure the mission was right in her confirmation hearings? It just seems you are holding them to very different standards - wanting Kerry to take a position not even Feingold has taken, but not requiring it of Obama or Clinton, who have the power to actually do it.

[bigtree]

14. I'm not moving off of any position I've actually taken against the occupation just by posting this

As far as I'm concerned, the SoS and her views from the State Dept. represent a significant part of the president's agenda there. In Kerry's case, his views are representative of the response (if any) Congress will have to whatever course the president decides for the future.

From Sec. Clinton's statements, it appears that the administration is distancing themselves (or insulating themselves) from the nation-building that seemed to be at the center of the justifications for the last escalation. Not that they're moving off of their 'goal' to 'deny' al-Qaeda a safe haven', but they seem to be working to qualify support of the regime we just spent life and limb defending in the 'elections'. However, if we are going to use the forces there in any continuing defense of Kabul or the supportive provinces surrounding the capital, there will be a real question of the efficacy of defending a corrupt and unpopular regime whose authority and influence don't extend far beyond the line in the dirt drawn by our occupying forces.

The part of the administration's policy which is missing is how much the president is willing to invest in that defense of Kabul and what posture our forces will assume in size and mission in defense of the southern border and whatever operation they want to stage militarily into Pakistan.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't think the U.S. is any good at any of this (State's ambitions or the CiC's), and our force presence and activity is actually antithetical to the goals they've outlined as their primary reason for remaining militarily engaged. As proof, I'd point to the entirety of our involvement there as the violent resistance which is the aggravating and justifying factor actually increased under our watch. Just look at the past months since the last escalation and tell me what we've done so far to alleviate or remedy any of those 'security' concerns both Mrs. Clinton and the president have said are their main justification for remaining.

We should stop the meddling and positioning and just leave.

[karynnj]

16. Fair enough - I was just confused as to what I saw as different standards

I think that very little of the President's policy has yet been declared or defined. Here, we are getting an early glimpse that Obama may reject the major escalation that the Republicans, the neo-cons, and parts of the military were pushing for.

I think Clinton did a nice job repeating some of the things, similar to things Kerry spoke of in forming his opinion, that start to build up a future case for the mission definition (which has changed since the March one that Clinton pushed for to (assuming Obama has defined one and HRC spoke of it) the one Kerry and Biden were for in March), the policy to get there (which was NOT described because it would be wrong for anyone but Obama to do so - so instead Clinton spoke of the process behind the decision and defended Obama taking his time), and the logistics and troop requirements needed to accomplish the mission using the chosen policy.

It may be that Obama will further diminish the role from what seemed to be signaled here - which is pretty vague. To me it says we are rejecting the mission that McChrystal's policy was defined for and on the other side, we are not leaving.

By the way, I realized I forgot to recommend - so I just did - because this is an important post. Likely the best smoke signal we have as to where Obama is going.

[optimator]

19. disliking America is not a valid reason to kill people

The "enemy" in Afghanistan/Pakistan do NOT have the means to harm the United States.
And it is a lie to claim they are Al-Qaeda.
a LIE.