Clinton: “No long-term stake in Afghanistan”
Every time Mr. Obama declares that the United States will not have an “open-ended” military commitment in Afghanistan, he fuels a second concern of the powerful Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which believes the United States commitment is fleeting.It is a concern that some of them say justifies Pakistan’s continuing ties to the militants who fight American troops in Afghanistan.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to fuel this concern on Sunday in her comments on the ABC program “This Week,” saying: “We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear.”
I was listening to the program and I was pretty surprised when Hillary said that. It sounded more like an improvisation than a well-prepped talking point. But it illustrates the confusion at the heart of Obama’s policy. The White House wants to demonstrate resolve while being sure it has an “off-ramp” for its commitment. When delivering that kind of confused message, even the best talkers will slip up.
Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
4 Responses to “Clinton: “No long-term stake in Afghanistan””
Now, this is what people in other countries, friend or foe, are really concerned about, not show trials. But the “trial of time”. We are perceived, by some, to have one eye on the exit ramp, so who can blame the Afghanis, the Pakistanis, etc., and even looking south, the central and South Americans. This is not new, and we all share the blame, it has been going on for probably decades, with Dems and Reps, White House and Congress participating with the approval of all of us. In some circles it is called a lack of a backbone.
… or a lack of planning and resolve before starting the war. As much as we know about the middle east, it was insanity to go in there in the first place. Yes, we need to figure out what we're doing, and do it. But the options are much better when you have a full plan ready before you dive in.
Plenty of planning and plenty of resolve, are good now, and were sometimes employed in the past.
However, I am talking about the perception (reality?) that resolve turns into dissolve too often.
Ask many foreigners and at least some will say we are fair weather friends.
” But the 'trial of time'. … it has been going on for probably decades”
Since World War II?
To what extent does Korea, as well as Vietnam, also involve
“a lack of planning and resolve before starting the war”
including a definition and goal of victory, as well as the determination to achive it?
(This is also true about what we do after a war, during “the peace,” the occupation, too. While I was corrected recently about the legal mistake I made about what our nation _should_ be obliged to do, or what the scope of what we “should” do encompasses we at least should agree on what we should do before we proceed to do it, insofar as an occupation is concerned.)