| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Clinton: US after own interests in Afghanistan |
| 2009-11-16 |
| [Iran Press TV Latest] US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed that the US mission was to eradicate Al-Qaeda militants and not to establish a modern democracy in Afghanistan. Clinton criticized the policies of the former president George W. Bush in Afghanistan in an interview with ABC News on Sunday. "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," she asserted. Bush administration had pledged to spread democracy in Afghanistan following the 2001 ouster of the Taliban militants by a US-led invasion. Clinton emphasized that Washington was pursuing its own interests in the war-torn country where insecurity and poverty has escalated drastically over the past few years. "Our primary focus is on the security of the United States of America" and "how we protect and defend against future attacks," she reiterated. Clinton also criticized Afghan President Hamid Karzai over alleged corruption in his administration. "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 demanded. However, US media reported in October that Karzai's brother has been a CIA operative in Afghanistan as well as a major drug pusher in the country that finances the Taliban insurgency. He was also reported to have ties with the Taliban leadership. Karzai himself lived and received education in the US for many years and was widely reported to be the US man in Afghanistan. Also, differences have also emerged between key US figures on handling of controversial war in Afghanistan. US Ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry have recently expressed serious reservations about sending more troops to Afghanistan until Karzai's government comes to grips with the alleged corruption. Meanwhile, US and NATO commander Stanley McChrystal has warned that the war could be lost unless 40,000 more troops are sent to the war-ravaged country. The US President Barack Obama is not expected to announce a final decision on the matter for several weeks. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #13 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed that the US mission was to eradicate Al-Qaeda militants and not to establish a modern democracy in Afghanistan. Clinton also criticized Afghan President Hamid Karzai over alleged corruption in his administration. Not sure she can have it both ways. |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins**** 2009-11-16 17:54 |
| #12 If India takes POK, it will be a huge a geopolitical setback for China and I doubt they will stand by and let it happen. China's problem is their long supply line through Tibet dependent on a few key bridges and tunnels. If China tries to militarily stop India retaking POK, things will escalate very rapidly. Map of Kashmir with claims |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-11-16 17:45 |
| #11 does "drawing in the regional powers" turn into a war between India & China, proxy or otherwise? The regional powers, India China Pakistan Iran Russia (and the Stans) The key piece of territory is Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. With Pakistan occupying, China has a route to Pakistan, Afghanistan and the India Ocean. If India retakes, it has a route to Afghanistan and the Stans (central Asia), and China loses its route. China aligns with Pakistan (obviously). Less obviously Russia and the Stans align with India. Iran is the wild card, but will probably favour India due to Shiia/Sunni rivalry. Pakistan/China support the Pushtun. India/Russia/the Stans support the Northern Alliance. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-11-16 17:25 |
| #10 phil b: i like the thinking of the ensuing civil war but if the regional powers got involved i believe we know what would happen.The UN would make a resolution then the US would have too send a peace keeping force which we would also have too pay for with alot less room for defending themselves. Kinda like Somalia before Black Hawk Down |
| Posted by: chris 2009-11-16 11:56 |
| #9 TW and phil_b have pegged it. The Taliban is the problem, DoS has not designated them a terrorist group, then having a variety of tools in the box to dismantle them, as our current policy is to pay them protection money! Dizzying foreign policy. Democracy and education counter fascism in the long term but copping out of a "civil war" so much easier--no problem, no solution needed. I don't know how Hillary defines US interests, but obviously national security and even national survival aren't among them. Why they insist on compartmentalizing extremists instead of fighting a war on all terrorists, regardless of variety and location, is beyond me. |
| Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-11-16 11:32 |
| #8 just whose interest should we be going after Clinton?? I could care less if the Afghans who have been sitting there for 1000's of years have schools or mosque or what not |
| Posted by: chris 2009-11-16 10:21 |
| #7 ....either we dismantle DoS, which has been around a couple of centuries, or we fire Clinton, who's been around 10 months as Sec of State. Not certain which is the more injurious. What say we do away with both? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-11-16 09:04 |
| #6 phil_b, does "drawing in the regional powers" turn into a war between India & China, proxy or otherwise? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2009-11-16 08:13 |
| #5 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed that the US mission was to eradicate Al-Qaeda militants and not to establish a modern democracy in Afghanistan. The Secretary of State's function is to convince foreign leaders that we are acting in their interests, as opposed to the common-sensical notion that we are acting in ours. Going around telling people that we are acting in our interests is not a function we need a Department of State or a Secretary of State for. It seems to me that one of two things needs to happen - either we dismantle DoS, which has been around a couple of centuries, or we fire Clinton, who's been around 10 months as Sec of State. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-11-16 08:02 |
| #4 Fooey. Al Qaeda itself is no longer the issue, as the Taliban have become the operational arm of Al Q. in that part of the world. Killing all the members of Al Qaeda down to the littlest henchmen fetching tea would change nothing. Without at least knocking back the various Taliban leaderships and raw numbers to something manageable, we'll not only lose Afghanistan to the jihadis, but we'll discover the next major attacks on our soil will have been managed out of Peshawar, not from the Al Q. hideout in the tribal territories. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-11-16 07:58 |
| #3 Note blaming Bush for wanting to establish a democratic functioning state. I think the end game becomes clearer. In summary, bribe the Taliban to say they have purged AQ from Pushtunistan. Problem solved. Everyone goes home. Civil war ensues, drawing in the regional powers. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-11-16 06:30 |
| #2 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed that the US mission was to eradicate Al-Qaeda militants and not to establish a modern democracy in Afghanistan. Don't know about you, but I'm pleasantly surprised. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-11-16 05:25 |
| #1 President Hamid Karzai, you had better be doing your homework every damn night. Your Idiot government is my off ramp. You had better shape that up for real. Get your troops secure and schooled real fast. Be a leader and get US out of there, It is not like we do not have other things to do. I want 50,000 more troops. Thats, what I want. Go myself if I had unit enough to support me. Life is nothing unless you leave its ability. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-11-16 03:11 |
