Hillary Clinton on Afghanistan

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Via Steve Clemons, here is Hillary Clinton on The News Hour tonight talking about Afghanistan:

MARGARET WARNER: Getting back to General McChrystal’s memo though, he conveys a great sense of urgency. I mean there’s one line in there in which he says, “failure to gain the initiative” — and he’s talking about in the near term, while we wait for the Afghan security forces to really get able to handle this — he said, “risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency’s no longer possible.” So he is strongly suggesting that there aren’t months and months to come to a decision here.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well and I respect that because clearly he is the commander on the ground, but I can only tell you there are other assessments from, you know, very expert military analysts who have worked in counter insurgencies that are the exact opposite. So what our goal is, is to take all of this incoming data and sort it out.

That’s interesting.  What exactly is Clinton referring to when she says “exact opposite”?  Is she suggesting that a bunch of other analysts are saying we can take our time figuring out what to do?  That’s the literal interpretation here, but it doesn’t seem very likely.

But if that’s not what she means, then she must be referring to something more substantive about McChrystal’s strategy.  And the internal disagreements must be pretty stark if some of the advice Obama is getting is the “exact opposite” of McChrystal’s.

There are only hints of what this might be, though.  At one point Clinton says McChrystal’s assessment is important, “but it’s a part of the overall process and there are many other considerations that we have to take into account.”  To my ear, she also seems to downplay McChrystal’s emphasis on governance, suggesting that although things in Afghanistan aren’t moving at the pace she’d like, “there are some positive changes going on […] and I can see, you know, the positives and then we want to move more to the positive side of the ledger.”  Then there’s this:

We have a clear and critical objective of trying to disrupt and dismantle and defeat al-Qaida and their extremist allies and prevent a return to safe haven….Some people say, “well al-Qaida’s no longer in Afghanistan.” If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can’t tell you how fast al-Qaida would be back in Afghanistan. So we have to be really clear-eyed about this.

I might be overinterpreting all this, but my take from this interview is that McChrystal wants to emphasize counterinsurgency (population protection, “heart and minds”) more than counterterrorism (killing bad guys) while perhaps Clinton — and Obama? — would rather do the opposite.  When Warner asks about governance, for example, Clinton doesn’t seem very engaged: sure, Afghanistan is corrupt, but hey — the place has never been well governed and the improvements we’re seeing now are nothing to sneeze at.  But when Warner asks about al-Qaeda, Clinton gets much more animated. “We have to be really clear-eyed about this,” she insists.  There might be a bigger struggle over fundamental strategy going on in the White House than we think.

UPDATE: It looks like pretty much everyone agrees that the counterinsurgency vs. counterterrorism argument has now heated up to the boiling point.  LA Times here, McClatchy here, Washington Post here.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend