SPIEGEL Interview with Hillary Clinton on Afghanistan (11/15/2009)

[Call Me Wesley]

'Our Goal Is to Defeat Al-Qaida and Its Extremist Allies'



US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke to SPIEGEL about her hopes for Afghanistan, her fears about al-Qaida's safe haven in Pakistan and her finite patience with Iran.

SPIEGEL: Madam Secretary, your government is considering sending more troops into Afghanistan. What for? Is it your goal to build a Western-style civil society there? Or is it just to prevent the establishment of new bases of terrorism?

Hillary Rodham Clinton : President Obama has not made any final decision. He has conducted a very deliberative process which has explored every assumption underlying every action. I think that this process alone has been quite productive. But I think it is fair to say that in the course of our examination, our goal is to defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies.

SPIEGEL: And what does this mean for the Afghan population, for their daily life?

Read full interview http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,661188,00.html">here.

[bridgit]

1. ^

:kick:

[Call Me Wesley]

3. Thank you!

;)

[TexasObserver]

2. Recommend

[Call Me Wesley]

4. "Our goal is to defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies."

Good luck with that. I don't think it can be done by military power.

[TexasObserver]

5. I recommended the thread.

Recommend doesn't mean I endorse the thought or thoughts expressed by someone in the story. I'm merely recommending the linked subject as worthy of reading.

As for Afghanistan, my opposition to our involvement is well known and consistent. Nothing Obama or Clinton say will change that.

[Call Me Wesley]

6. I know your opposition and share it myself.

I was just pointing out the obvious, quoting Clinton, not you. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough in my reply.

Al-Qeida/Taliban won't be defeated by sending more troops nor engagements in even more countries (like Pakistan.) It's an idea/ideal that is fought here, and sometimes, the harder it is fought, the more follow it. It leads to disaster.

The interview is worth of reading since it shows the fragile balancing act; knowing Karzai is corrupt, yet stand behind him because he's the 'elected' President. In one of her answers, she starts with how much the Afghan government helps, and ends with "we have to try to better organize our efforts and try to demand more from the Afghan government itself." Now what?

[TexasObserver]

7. Ah. I thought you read my comment as endorsing the Secretary's comments.

I often simply post RECOMMEND on threads I want to kick as well as Recommend. I recommend a number of threads each day that I don't post "Recommend" on, because those threads don't need it. If I think a thread needs a kick as well as the recommend, I post that.

It's just my way of getting further looks at a thread I think should be looked at. I'm pretty upset with the direction of our policy in Afghanistan. I'm beginning to think "Afghanistan" means "Vietnam" in some language of which we're unfamiliar.

I know we're in two quagmires and leaving is the only way we'll get home.

[Call Me Wesley]

8. No, I didn't read it as such.

It's a very interesting interview, especially regarding how she circles around basic questions and is willing to give the example that a guy was found who plotted against the NY subway system was trained at an Al-Qaida camp. No further information, and I don't recall reading about it anywhere. It's like they have to pull every little thing to defend the involvement in Afghanistan.

There are many similarities with Vietnam, unfortunately.