What is Condoleezza Rice Talking About?

In an interview with Fortune magazine, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, "The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan, that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th." She goes on to say, "So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists." She declared, "It's that simple, if you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan."

Actually, Ms. Rice, it's not that simple. Your logic ignores the fact that terrorists can move to governed spaces. Rather than setting up in weak, ungoverned states, enemies can flourish in strong states because these countries have formally recognized governments with the sovereignty to reject foreign interference in their domestic affairs. This is one reason why terrorists find sanctuary across the border in Pakistan. Besides, 9/11 was planned in many other countries with competent law enforcement agencies, Germany and the United States included.

If there were (God forbid!) another 9/11, it would prove that invading and forcibly democratizing two Muslim-majority countries has not made America safer. In fact, if Ms. Rice is so concerned about abandoning Afghanistan, where was she in 2002 when her boss diverted America's resources away from those who attacked us on 9/11 by invading a country that did not?

Americans should reject Ms. Rice's atrocious interpretation of policy and remember that she and her ilk were adept at keeping the American public in an elevated state of panic. Fear-mongering should be rejected and replaced with a sober analysis of policy and its consequences.

Al Qaeda poses a manageable security problem, not an existential threat to America. Yet, as I mention here, policymakers tend to conflate al Qaeda with indigenous Pashtun-dominated militias. America's security, however, will not be at risk even if an oppressive regime takes over a contiguous fraction of Afghan territory; and if the Taliban were to provide sanctuary to al Qaeda once again, it would be easier to strike at the group within Afghanistan than in neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

 

 

Comments

[MillinMn]

As an historical expert on the Soviet Union, it is amazing how much Ms. Rice gets wrong about nations like Afghanistan, which borders on that old commie mess of a state.

Then again, she was national security advisor when we were attacked by Al Quada on 9/11/01. And obviously failed big time. So her thought on Afghanistan seem very retro, and not particularly compelling

[ignorantwillyharper]

WHAT IS CONDI TALKING ABOUT?

Well don't ask her, she just like her boss, neither has ever had a clue as to what was/is going on!

[davism97]

Rice also seems to ignore the fact that we had red flags ans sirens going off weeks before 9/11. The Bush administration could've looked out for our countries interest then by acting on those warnings instead of playing golf.

[ignorantwillyharper]

Also biking and cutting brush. Less be thankful Bush stayed on vacation more than any previous president, as we'd really be in trouble if he hadn't.

[ewoman]

Go buy something, Condi. Shoes, perhaps...

[TheIndependenceParty]

Rice is most likely writing a book, ... and making preliminary sorties into the market to press her agenda. Save the paper, ... buy it on clearance. She alwas tells the same doomsday story again and again.

Why should we listen to this Bush mouthpiece who asked about 9/11 "How could anyone have guessed that this could happen". Is she prescient now, when before she was oblivious to warnings from the CIA???

Go away, Condi. Try on a few boots and buy a pair to wear around the house, ... but your days in charge are past, and your opinion is of no consequence.

[strangelet]

Good grief. While I have never been in total agreement with Dr. Rice, I have usually felt that she was a fairly thoughtful conservative, but this is ridiculous. She appears to believe the reason that Al Qaeda (the real one, not the copycats that emerged in Iraq in response to the occupation) was based in Afghanistan is that it was a "failed state". Actually, it was a fairly stable (if poor) state in the immediate pre-9/11 period; just one that was governed by extreme religious fundamentalists.

Afghanistan has been a "failed state" before -- indeed, the Taliban was one of the more successful governments -- and if we pull out, it may well fail again. But there are already several other "failed states", as well as quite a few non-failed ones, that are quite capable of harboring and/or sponsoring terrorist groups. Honestly, Dr. Rice, we cannot invade and occupy all of them.

There is a lot of value in disrupting terror organizations, and I -- despite considering myself a flaming liberal -- would fully support carefully targeted incursions into failed states (or even non-failed ones) to blow up terrorist leaders when the opportunity presents itself.But to BE useful, the targeting has to be good (e.g., avoid blowing up wedding parties and school children), and that requires "HUMINT", which requires establishing networks, which requires patience and lots of money.

That money could come from not throwing it down the occupation hole as we've been doing for years.

[Emma Asomba]

Anything that comes out of Condi Rice's mouth about Afghanistan is kinda like having to deal with a recurring sneeze about the spectacle/debacle of nation-building à la neo-con flavor. Gosh! I keep sneezing again 'cos' this time it's like that she's still babbling about their misplaced strategic decision-making. Yeah, really misplaced 'cos' their so-called 'war on terrorism' within the region bypassed critical bus stops covered with signs saying that terrorists groups had become stateless entities carrying in their midst myriads of unconventional threats.

[kbee819]

Let's get prepared to hear the term "abandonment" ad nauseum in relation to Afghanistan policy. Abandonment is the chosen word du jour to distort public opinion and create more Fear. It is irresponsible and negligent for a former Secretary of State not vested with any authority for strategy input to make such unequivocal statements when the lives of so many are at stake. How can she or any other politican in good conscience fault the Administration and Congress for favoring careful consideration and strategy deliberation when risking American lives. The paradox that some can actively support sending Americans to die on foreign soil to hypothetically pre-empt loss of lives on American soil is puzzling. I think Condeelza Rice is to Dick Cheney what Charlie McCarthy was to Edgar Bergen. Where are the termites when you need them?

[MysticalPippin]

you're so right Kbee. Republicans are notorius for making up the word du jour by imbueding their own meaning into an existing word ....either that or they make up a term/phrase and claim it to have a real legal meaning. Remember "partial birth abortions"? - there was no such phrase in any medical dictionary at the time they started spreading that one around - it was just another "political" phrase they made up to fit into their OWN agenda - which was of course to make people feel guilty and ashamed of their - pro-choioce opinions on abortion.

[Geogravee]

Hello Malou;

Condoleeza Rice was an embarrasement then and one now. America is broke and past accepting her simplistic fear mongering ideology and lies that got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is not Harvard material and this may explain her Bush-like simplistic conclusions on Afghanista­n.Cheney and Bush needed a Condoleeza Rice to take the heat now and then and she did this willingly and in style. I dont want to ever see her in public office because of the damage she caused to our image internationally and our economy.

[Mainframer]

No one has answered to my satisfaction why terrorists would attack US interests for no good reason.

The truth is, is that we invite these attacks (and the resentment and anger that precede them) with our long-standing history of interference, intervention and meddling with governments that do not play ball with us from a trade perspective.

Years of intervention in Central and South America to protect business in oil and fruits. More of the same in the Middle East for oil.

We have had blinders on (or been systematically deceived) if we think that we are a faultless, selfless and saintly country unjustly reviled and attacked. The truth is we have overturned or corrupted dozens of popularly elected governments just because their domestic policies threatened American business interests.

The only way to stop terrorist attacks is to keep our hands off countries whose governments have legitimacy with their citizens. And stop propping up those who are supporting the US to the detriment of their own people.

[EndRacismNow]

I agree. But it's not just America that makes these decisions to mess with countries that don't play ball. America is the muscle to carry out the missions of conquering rogue nations. These countries that don't cooperate normally don't comply with the international banking system. In the book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", John Perkins details what banks like the IMF do to countries that aren't cooperating with establishing puppet central banks or free trade agreements. They go into to either persuade the leader to play ball or they assassinate that leader and install a puppet leader. The IMF wrecked Argentina's economy with loans at interest rates the country could not repay. So the country printed so much money to pay the loans that they endured hyperinflation and the economy collapsed. It's very similar to what the U.S. is experiencing now.

[sustainable]

So where does that leave Thailand? They don't meddle in international affairs nor do they throw their weight around bullying other countries - but they still get attacked by terrorists intent on colonizing their country.

[fodel]

What are we suppose to do with all the people who voted despite threats from the taliban to cut of their fingers? they trusted the US? are we going to desert them like we did the kurds in iran? . Are we really going to abandon them to the Taliban who blow up 1000 yr. old Buddha statues, throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, beat women on the streets, and hold public executions?

[blueshield]

I'm no fan of Ms. Rice and her support of the Bushwack doctrine is unforgivable.

But, I don't think she's wrong on the main point here.

If the social and economic fabric of a place is weak, criminals move in and take over. It doesn't matter if it's Afghanistan or Westside USA. When police go into our crime ridden neighborhoods to suppress crime and gangbangers, and then just roll away, the problem returns.

Afghanistan is more complicated because we helped militarize and then invaded the place. But abandoning innocent civilians to the mess we've created (as we've done many times in other places) should not be acceptable US policy.

If you're saying "I don't care" because our policy was wrong in the first place, you run the risk of being just as callous and ideological as Rice and her pals.

[Gidster]

The article points out the fact that Al-0Qaeda flourished and even planned the 9/11 attacks in Germany and the USA...Thes­e are not lawless places.

I agree that this is a mess that we helped to create under Reagan, and abandoning these folks is not acceptable.

[Gidster]

Ooops...Al­-Qaeda....­.typo...

[ffejretsof]

Hey Condi: It was a republican administration that dumped billions of dollars of bombs in afghanistan so they could fight the soviets and it was the republicans who left afghanistan when the soviets pulled out.

[leftflank]

The real threat has always been Pakistan's (or worse, Russia's) marginally controlled nuclear arsenal. While 9/11 was spectacular and horrible, it was nothing compared to the detonation of a nuc near a crowded urban center. Toward the end of Richard Rhodes excellent book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" there's a chapter on the effects of a nuclear bombing. It should be required reading for all Americans. I think there would be a lot less talking about "just nuc 'em" and a lot more concern for just how careful we should be in foreign policy. The Bush team (Ms Rice included) did absolutely nothing to contain the deteriorating situation in Pakistan or secure the Soviet stockpile and now she has the gall to fear monger from the sidelines? Jeez.