Can Hillary Clinton win the war in Afghanistan?

Secretary Clinton / AP Photo: Bullit Marquez

---

Related Articles

• Hill prepares for Afghan policy roll-out

• It Is Your War Not Ours, Ms. Clinton

• Clinton Seen as Obama’s Key Link to Afghan Leader

• US Cautious on Afghan Outreach to Taliban

After months of speculation that Sec. of State Hillary Clinton has been "marginalized" by the Obama administration, and questions about her prominence (or lack of it) with the president's inner circle, it seems the Secretary has risen above the gossip and diffused the rumors. As is appropriate for the United States chief diplomat, and key presidential adviser, Secretary Clinton has taken full ownership of US policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan. The idea that she has not been the president's point person on "just about everything" (as VP Joe Biden described it, amicably) is erroneous; however, with the sudden and critical confidence with which Afghan president Hamid Karzai has embraced Clinton, there can be no doubt now that the Secretary is the premier US official supervising the anti-terrorist campaign in Central Asia, and which has global correspondences stemming from the Middle East.

Afghanistan is the crossroads to much of the Indo-European continent, bordered on the north by the former Soviet bloc countries of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, Iran to the west, Pakistan to the south, and China to the east. Afghanistan is situated on a key trade hub, the "Silk Road" of antiquity, with east-west and north-south connections, which have attracted commerce and conflict since the time of Alexander the Great and earlier. According to Wikipedia, "Since the late 1970s Afghanistan has experienced a continuous state of civil war punctuated by foreign occupations in the forms of the 1979 Soviet invasion and the 2001 U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban government. In late 2001 the United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) composed of NATO troops. The country is being rebuilt by international support, while dealing with a strong insurgency."

Obama Administration begins crafting Af-Pak policy drive early, Clinton scrutinized

During his presidential campaign in 2008, then-Senator Obama described Afghanistan as the "necessary war," differentiating it from the ongoing conflict in Iraq, which he pledged to end. Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, Secretary Clinton has worked doggedly on this goal. Vice President Biden was given the Iraq portfolio, freeing Clinton to focus on the evolving situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Her appointment of Special Envoys all over the globe drew the first serious criticisms of her place in the scheme of things, appearing on the outside that these "experts" (some of which, like George Mitchell, were considered serious contenders for the Secretary's seat themselves) would overshadow and marginalize Clinton on the process. This notion was promptly denied, with the assertion that an "all hands of deck" strategy was being taken, and that it was "not about Hillary," but about getting the job done. The speculation continued in spite of these voices including, Clinton herself, along with a chorus of others including former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Sen. John Kerry, who assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2009, and President Obama.

On February 26th, 2009, just over a month after being confirmed as Sec. of State, Clinton announced a trilateral committee between the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The first meeting, with Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta and Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi took place at the State Department and was a first in so much as it brought Pakistan into the fold on US-Afghanistan policy. Although it was well-known around the DC beltway that Pakistan could not be ignored in the drive to defeat al-Qaeda, the actual government of Pakistan had not been included in talks or policy negotiations up to that point. Two days later, the Secretary was off on a 9-day diplomatic tour of the Middle East and Europe, followed by a brief trip to Mexico and then off to the Hague, where, at the urging of Secretary Clinton, an International Conference on Afghanistan was hosted by the Dutch government on March 31st.

Secretary Clinton takes the lead on Af-Pak at Hague conference, advances idea of Taliban outreach

In her opening remarks, Secretary Clinton wasted no time getting to the point, saying, "Thanks to the efforts of the international community, the perpetrators of the horrific terrorist attacks of 9/11 – attacks which killed citizens from more than 90 countries – were driven from Afghanistan, and the Afghan people made a promising start toward a more secure future. But since those first hopeful moments, our collective inability to implement a clear and sustained strategy has allowed violent extremists to regain a foothold in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, and to make the area a nerve center for efforts to spread violence from London to Mumbai... The plan I outline today is the product of intensive consultations with nations that have donated troops and support; Afghanistan’s neighbors and international institutions that play a vital role in Afghanistan’s future. The results of these consultations are clear: Our strategy must address the challenge in Afghanistan and Pakistan; it must integrate military and civilian activities and support them with vigorous international diplomacy; and it must rest on the simple premise that while we can and will help, Afghanistan’s future ultimately rests with the Afghan people and their elected government. Security is the essential first step; without it, all else fails. Afghanistan’s army and police will have to take the lead, supported by the International Security Assistance Force."

Secretary Clinton also outlined the framework by which the US and Afghanistan could reach out to non-extremist factions of the Taliban, to bring them back into the Afghan government, and gain their support and assistance against al-Qaeda. In her opening remarks at the Hague conference she said, "We must also support efforts by the Government of Afghanistan to separate the extremists of al-Qaeda and the Taliban from those who joined their ranks not out of conviction, but out of desperation. This is, in fact, the case for a majority of those fighting with the Taliban. They should be offered an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration into a peaceful society if they are willing to abandon violence, break with al-Qaida, and support the constitution." And later, at the press availability Q&A she expanded further, after a reporter asked her if opening talks with the Taliban was not just another form of "negotiationg with terrorists." Sec. Clinton said, "No, it isn’t. I mean, what I said is the policy of the Government of Afghanistan and a recognition by a number of nations that the Taliban consists of a hard-core of committed extremists with whom there is not likely to be any chance of any kind of reconciliation or reintegration. But it is our best estimate that the vast majority of Taliban fighters and members are people who are not committed to a cause so much as acting out of desperation. And therefore, an offer of not only reconciliation, but a chance for them to be reintegrated into Afghan society, to perhaps have employment, to get help with their property in terms of preparing it for agricultural production, we think that there are a number of people who are currently in the Taliban who would accept such an offer. Now, it has to be proven that they are willing to walk away from the Taliban. We did see quite a bit of this in Iraq, where people who had taken up arms against the United States and against the coalition and against the elected Iraqi Government decided to walk away from their involvement in return for the position in society and a job that was offered to them. And I think that this is very likely the course that we can take with respect to members of the Taliban, too."

Both of these issues, inclusion of Pakistan and reaching out to the Taliban, are just now gaining popular attention, but they have been in the works since the onset of the Obama administration, with Secretary Clinton guiding the policies involved. The Secretary has been building important coalitions to support the Af-Pak anti-terror campaigns, making diplomatic overtures to every international government that could support or assist, and attempting to counter intense anti-US sentiments, particularly in Pakistan, where the United States is largely seen as the cause of the problem, not the savior. At the urging of the president, Clinton has opened overtures to Iran, spent countless hours on the phone and in closed door meetings with her Russian counterparts, spent weeks traveling and speaking all over Asia, even softening her rhetoric on North Korea in an attempt to smooth over nuclear negotiations, and recently took the reigns on resolving old tensions between Pakistan and India. These frameworks and partnerships take time and "vigorous diplomacy," as Secretary Clinton has described it many times. And not everyone is on the same page.

South Waziristan anti-Taliban campaign in Pakistan complicates matters

As the Afghanistan situation evolved, the situation in Pakistan got worse. The Pakistani government launched a major offensive in South Waziristan against Taliban insurgents, a critical and important move, but one which highlighted the necessity for broader cooperation. As US drone attacks along the Af-Pak border have become more and more undependable, and militants continue crossing the border of the two countries largely unchecked, the United States began to come under heavier and heavier pressure to increase their presence in Afghanistan. President Obama's campaign promises to "get it right" in Afghanistan began to sound hollow, and headlines started to pop up comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam and calling it, "Obama's Iraq," etc. And then, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, injected himself, politically, and uninvited.

Gen. McChrystal complicates Af-Pak by inserting himself politically

McChrystal went on the offensive, appearing in the American popular media and going on the Sunday show loop, describing the situation in Afghanistan as worsening and calling for a major troop increase, similar to the one used in Iraq. McChrystal took to the airwaves, appearing in 60 Minutes on Sunday, September 27th. Pitching directly to the American public, McChrystal said the situation in Afghanistan was "getting worse" and detailed his plan for increased troops. This prompted angry reactions from the White House and a barely veiled reprimand from both CentComm Commander Gen. David Petraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who both pointed out that the "chain of command" needs to be used properly to get requests pushed through. National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones went further the following Sunday, calling McChrystal's recommendation, "his opinion." Gen. McChrystal appeared again in London at the Institute for Strategic Studies where he openly criticized VP Biden's plan to scale back the effort. He warned sternly that Taliban and Al-Qeada forces were still a threat, and soundly denounced any suggestion that less US presence would work. He pointed out, “You have to navigate from where you are, not from where you wish to be,” he said. “A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.” He also called any strategy that focused on counter-terrorism rather than counter-insurgency a strategy that would create "Chaos-istan."

Days of accusations and conflicting reports coming from the White House ensued in the media about Gen. McChrystal's unusually politicized insertion into the Afghanistan war. The political bomb set off by McChrystal became so toxic that by the beginning of October, in a joint press conference, Secretaries Clinton and Gates had to speak in defense of Gen. McChrystal to diffuse fresh rumors that the Obama inner circle was disintegrating in debates over the strategies being considered. CNN aired a forum sponsored by the George Washington University, where Clinton and Gates described McChrystal as, "exactly the right person to be the commander in Afghanistan right now." Gates also agreed with McChrystal's assessment of Afghanistan, saying, “I can’t improve on Gen. McChrystal’s assessment that the situation in Afghanistan is serious and deteriorating,” Gates added. “You have to start where you are, not where you wish you were."

McChrystal also set off a chain reaction on the Afghanistan strategy. His premature insertion into the situation was the likely cause of accusations that President Obama was "dithering" on his decision to send more troops or not. The President is now set to make his announcement of the new Afghanistan strategy on Tuesday, December 1st. After this announcement, Secretary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen will testify to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, on December 2nd. There is also a strong dissonance on Af-Pak in the US. On the one hand, public opinion polls indicate sharply declining support for the Afghanistan war, while on the other, public pressure to make a decision (which will mean sending more troops, regardless of how many) has also sharply increased. So the public hates this war, but they want something done about it, too.

Pakistan demands to be brought to the table

Pakistan has recently upped its rhetoric on inclusion. Their foreign minister made a direct request that the Pakistani government be included in policy meetings with the US and Afghanistan, and took both Secretary Clinton and President Obama to task on their promises of increased information sharing and border security efforts. With mounting evidence that al-Qaeda and Taliban have joined forces, many players in the situation began to say the focus must be widened to include both countries. Also, international agreement on Taliban inclusion in the Afghan government has increased. UK Foreign Minister David Miliband said on November 17th that he believes a lasting peace in Afghanistan can only be accomplished through democracy, with a political compromise. Miliband suggests that key Taliban leaders be approached and included in the government of Afghanistan. He said that Afghan authorities should reach out to, "...high-level commanders that can be persuaded to renounce al-Qaeda and pursue their goals peacefully." The Pakistani government also pushed back  diplomatically against the US, facing scrutiny from Secretary Clinton who made the blunt remark that Pakistan knew where al-Qaeda was and could find them "if they wanted to." They denied that Taliban leaders are inside Pakistan's borders, and have withheld heightened cooperation pending stronger overtures from the US. Top-level meetings in Washington the week of Thanksgiving, with Indian officials helped to smooth over US-Pakistani relations, and may go a long way in getting back on the correct path. At the very least, the meetings were a show of good faith to Pakistan.

Clinton star power and Kerry savvy brings Afghan President Karzai into the fold

Facing a closing door, Sen. John Kerry was sent to Afghanistan to speak directly with President Karzai. Kerry's diplomacy won over Karzai to the idea of allowing a runoff election, which was undermining him internationally by resisting, and reopened the full spectrum of US-Afghan relations. Secretary Clinton has made a stellar win in Afghanistan since. Recently re-elected, President Karzai has embraced Clinton, and allowed her into his confidence. The New York Times reports that previous attempts to draw Karzai closer to the US have failed, saying "Shortly before Mr. Obama took office, Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. stalked out of a meeting with Mr. Karzai. More recently, Mr. Karzai reacted badly when the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, asked him what he would do if a runoff election became necessary after the initial round of voting in August. The American ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, has a workable relationship with Mr. Karzai, officials said. But the two have also had their ups and downs, and anyway, some American officials say the White House needs an interlocutor at a higher level than an ambassador, or even a special envoy, like Mr. Holbrooke." In an impressive show of respect and honor for Clinton, Karzai moved his inauguration date up several weeks to accommodate the Secretary, and had a private one-on-one meeting with Clinton for 90 minutes. Prior to this event, Karzai had largely rebuffed most other serious overtures, and full cooperation from the Afghan government was not assured. Karzai reportedly was upset that the weekly video conferences the Bush administration held with his government were discontinued under Obama.

Clinton seems to have effectively reassured Karzai and the Afghan government that the US intends to see their goals achieved as well as Afghanistan's goal of increased security and continued autonomy, allaying fears of a protracted US occupation. Addressing US forces in Kabul, Secretary Clinton said, "...we have to do everything we can to create the capacity of the Afghan Government and the Afghan people to protect themselves. And I was very pleased to hear today when President Karzai said that he hopes that within three years, the Afghan security forces will have the lead in important areas, and within five years – which is an ambitious goal, but he stated it – the Afghan security forces would have the lead throughout the country." This is in line with Gen. McChrystal's evaluation that it will take approximately four years to secure Afghanistan and transfer full security responsibility to their government.

Taliban chief preaches against "stooges" of America, says no to inclusion

The Taliban remains intractable, rejecting the idea of inclusion. The Daily Beast reports that Taliban chief, Mullah Omar is in direct opposition to any such idea, "Omar begins by rejecting any offer of negotiations from the Kabul government. He calls President Hamid Karzai a stooge of America and warns all his captains to avoid any discussion with the collaborators in Kabul unless it is to speed their defections. Omar has consistently rejected negotiations with Karzai, and he notes Karzai’s recent reelection was marred by massive corruption and vote fraud. Then Omar urges all the educated and literate of Afghanistan to rally behind the Taliban mujahideen. He warns Afghanistan’s neighbors that collaboration with NATO today will come home to haunt them later, once the Taliban have triumphed—a clear warning that the Taliban intend to export their revolution if they succeed." Similar accusations against the US have been made in Pakistan, with the Taliban leaders there calling into suspect the multi-million dollar packages that the US contributed to Pakistani aid programs as blood money. Regardless, Secretary Clinton reiterated on Monday, Nov. 23rd, "...the general idea of exploring this [inclusion of Taliban in Afghan government] is one that we have been open to. With respect to the outcome of any such discussions, however, we have urged caution and real standards that are expected to be met by anyone who is engaged in these conversations, so that whatever process there is can actually further the stability and peace of Afghanistan, not undermine it."

In spite of gaffes, Clinton soldiers on, meets with a wide coalition in Pakistan

Clinton also conducted a very broad diplomatic tour in Pakistan, in spite of intense negative feelings in the country toward the US. She met with a broad cross section of the Pakistani civil society as well as General Kayani, Pakistan’s Army chief, and prominent tribal chiefs in the NWFP. Shahid R. Siddiqi, writing for The Axis of Logic, in an article titled, "It Is Your War Not Ours, Ms. Clinton," says, "If Clinton kept an open mind and made some sense of the criticism she heard, she should have drawn some important conclusions. One, there is enormous pent up anger against decades of manipulative American policies to exploit Pakistan. Two, Pakistanis intensely dislike American intervention in their internal affairs, including manipulations of removing and installing governments. Three, no government in Islamabad can survive for long that serves as a door mat for the Americans. Four, Pakistanis would aggressively reject policies that serve American geopolitical interests in this region that threaten Pakistan’s stability and security." There is a long road ahead for full spectrum cooperation on Af-Pak, however, Secretary Clinton is at the forefront of the effort, and all signs point to the idea that she, and the Obama administration, are approaching it with an open mind.