Sec. Clinton expands on her view that there's no 'long-term stake' for U.S. in Afghanistan

Briefing En Route Kabul, Afghanistan


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
En Route Kabul, Afghanistan
November 18, 2009

{snip}

QUESTION: Can I just ask you – can I just ask – in your Sunday interviews, you talked about how we don’t have a long-term stake in Afghanistan; we don’t want to stay there. Can you just explain a little bit more? Because that seems to go against this notion of having a counterinsurgency that would protect the people and get all of the things --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think so. I know we’re landing, but – and they want us to sit down – but let me say quickly, we don’t have a long-term military stake. We’re not seeking to occupy Afghanistan for the undetermined future. We don’t want bases in Afghanistan. And I think that’s an important message.

We do want to help the Afghan Government and people build up their own capacity so that they can defend themselves. I mean, the most common statement that we hear all the time from people in the country is, look, we want you to stay, we want your help, you need to give us the tools to be able to defend ourselves, and then we want you to leave. That’s a military context.

Would they want our help going forward on schools and healthcare and agriculture? Of course. But everybody is rightly focused on what is the military commitment and is this some kind of nose in the – camel’s nose in the tent that the United States is engaged in. No, it’s not.

QUESTION: And yet the Karzai government would like that. They have said repeatedly they would like more of these troops.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they – but they would like a security understanding the way we have with many countries, but not necessarily troops stationed in their countries in large numbers.


entire text of interview: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/11/132081.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/18/world/AP-AS-Afghanistan-Clinton.html?_r=2&hp

''Nobody knows better than our military commanders that troops alone cannot meet our goals of defeating al-Qaida, of helping the Afghans get the capacity to defend themselves and provide governance that will result in positive changes for the people of this country,'' she said.

''The military has performed brilliantly, time and time again, in confronting terrorism and protecting civilians and training security forces and defending borders, but this has got to be a common joint strategy that we look at from the beginning -- not as an afterthought.''

. . . which she's been remarkably faithful to in her statements and support.

I still believe they've stacked up priorities for the U.S. in Afghanistan which, if followed to the end she and the president outline, will mean more than just a short-term commitment for the troops which (she and the president admit) are necessary to facilitate them.

Which is all the more reason to pay attention to what she says. Especially when it comes to foreign policy. That's why Obama chose her to be SoS. The republicans will call this Nation Building, myself I think it is our duty to the Afghan people as well as ourselves.

. . . this time with a Democratic accent. I think its a strange notion that our administration has a 'duty' to the Afghan people to intervene in their country's affairs in such a destructive and paternalistic fashion. Typical arrogant Americanism to believe that all of our puffed-up schemes and devices we use to consolidate power and influence are correct by the mere virtue of our ability to pursue them.

btw, this administration calls it 'nation-building' themselves.

to each there own.