Though the war in Afghanistan is entering its ninth year with no serious consideration of American forces ever actually leaving, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insists the US has no long-term designs on the nation.
“We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan; we’re not interested in any long-term presence there,” Clinton insisted on an interview today. She didn’t indicate what “long term” means in this context.
Clinton also demanded that Afghan President Hamid Karzai “do better” in his efforts to stabilize the nation, saying that the US might yank all civilian aid from the nation if the Afghan government doesn’t become more accountable.
She insists that the US has no illusions that Afghanistan will ever become a “modern democracy” and says that the war is continuing only to “get al-Qaeda.” Though Clinton did not mention this fact, only two months ago Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, said there was no indication that al-Qaeda has any significant presence in the nation.
At the same time, Gen. McChrystal has been pressing for a massive escalation of the war effort, and while the announcement of President Obama’s decision has been delayed for several months in the face of the conflict’s rising unpopularity he is widely expected to commit at least 30,000 additional US troops to the war.
6 thoughts on “Clinton Insists US Doesn’t Have Long-Term Designs on Afghanistan”
No designs on Afghanistan. Really? Yet it's clear from the Iraq history, the strategy is – has always been – liberate (invade), select a couple of lead guys from the politicians (thugs ) who've been operating in and around for a while, hold a "democratic" election, and tell the one elected that he'll stay in power just as long as he continues to support American strategy for the area.
And in the case of Afghanistan and all the "Stan" states, the strategy has been in place since at least Robert McFarlane's now declassified 1985 assessment of the area. It's Caspian Sea oil and gas, and keeping Russian in check.
I would agree with the Caspian Sea oil theory, but we can and have negotiated with dictators and even the Taliban, and negotiation is much more cost effective than war.
Plus we get our oil from Mexico, Canada, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezvuela. Beyond Saudi Arabia we are not dependent on Middle Eastern or South Asian oil.
And beyond that, any sane person, someone older than 8, would know that oil is a finite resource. We could invade Mexico or Canada and be home on the weekends margaritas in hand.
These wars are for Israel as Avigdor Lieberman kind-of said in March. We have no business there and need to get out.
Hillary is becoming more transparently evil all the time. Look at her left eye. Since those Pakistani women students told her off, and in light of everything everywhere showing her as a incompetent fool, coupled with glorification pieces in the NYT, Time Magazine, she is literally insane at this point, in my humble opinion.
No long-term designs? Then why not just leave?
No designs ? Hilary, check your generals long terms building projects of superbases inthat country, some to be completed by the year 2014.
It is hard to believe that the U.S. does not have any long-term plans in Afghanistan. Whether or not Obama decides to stay in this war is going to draw criticism from opposite ends. Asia Chronicle has been giving some good insight on the situation in Afghanistan. Worth a read I think. http://www.asiachroniclenews.com
Comments are closed.