The last time the Democrats ran a war, it was "Madeleine's war" when we bombed Serbia. For the Global Viewpoint Network, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright weighs in on Obama's deliberations on Afghanistan. Here is an excerpt:
Nathan Gardels: A big debate is raging in the Obama administration between those who seek a troop increase and nation-building strategy in Afghanistan - counter-insurgency - versus those who seek a more narrow counterterrorism strategy focused solely on fighting Al Qaeda and employing drone attacks. Where do you come down?
Madeleine Albright: Today's dilemmas, of course, are the result of not paying enough attention to Afghanistan while fighting in Iraq for eight years. So, in a sense, we are starting from scratch there. US national security interests dictate that eliminating Al Qaeda is the primary focus. That means sorting out their relationship with the Taliban and determining what real connection or overlap there is between the two. My own sense is that the lines between the two are very fuzzy - and therefore the lines between counterinsurgency vs. counterterrorism are quite unclear.
Rather than positing these strategies as alternatives, what we need to focus on is not creating more terrorists. On the one hand, if the drone or bombing attacks miss their targets and kill a lot of civilians, that creates animosity and recruits terrorists. On the other hand, if you don't provide security for the Afghan people, they are terrified. Out of fear, they will cooperate with the terrorists.
I do think Obama is doing the right thing by weighing his strategy decision carefully. I've always thought it is better to have a confident president than a certain one. A confident president is comfortable enough in his own capacity for judgment to solicit a broad array of opinions from advisers who might disagree.
Gardels: You do seem to fall on the side of a broader commitment in Afghanistan because you want to establish security and stability as a precondition for getting out.
Albright: Neither the US nor NATO can be responsible for Afghanistan for the rest of our lives. The bottom line is that the Afghans have to be able to operate on their own. But we have to help them get there - training the Afghan Army and police forces, as well as providing reconstruction assistance and a viable governing structure. We need to have this debate now so the American public understands what is at stake. Eight years have been wasted and there is no more time to waste. We've got to chart a course and stick to it.
Elsewhere in the interview, we talked about how Obama's strategy is working on Iran as
well as the distinctive "pin diplomacy" during her time at the UN and in the State Department.
If she were to meet Iranian president Ahmadinejad today, she says, she would wear green
in honor of the pro-democracy movement in Iran.
The full interview can be found on the Christian Science Monitor.
Johann Hari: The World's First 'Terrorists'
The lesson from the death of violent anarchism is that the solution lies beyond blanket violent repression of them or its polar opposite, capitulation to their demands. Could the same be done with Islamism?
Couric Relies on Albright to Blame Obama's Afghanistan Conundrum ...
RealClearPolitics - Video - Madeleine Albright On Iran & Afghanistan
Unplugged: Albright's Pins - CBS News Video
Madeleine Albright's Pins - CBS News Video
Ex-US top official Madeleine Albright advises Obama to increase ...
Madeleine Albright: 'Asian Century' ahead
Madeleine Albright Topics Page - USATODAY.com
In Afghan Refugee Camp, Albright Hammers Taliban - The New York Times
This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.
If Afghan's are urged to different direction out of their peculiar cultural lives, they're connection (direct/indirect) with the talebay may go on. Social genuine policies must be implemented rather than military operations!
Take that millions $$ tank that is rolling down their streets out...and pull in a fully stocked Library.
Take that millions $$ truck full of soldiers and guns out...and roll in a Well stocked Clinic.
That those missile launchers out...and roll in a School.
Put Americans to work building pre-fabs of everything and ship them over. A win - win.
If America brought wells and schools and clinics and Libraries in place of "everything destructive", they would impress the citizens that America stands for Peace and Progress not KILLING, KILLING all the time.
Madeleine is right, we don't make friends with bombs!! Ferchrissakes.
We don't want to be the bully on the world's stage, no matter how many neocons think that's just hunky-dory.
We need the diplomacy of the State Dept. advising our "operations" of winning friends. The military knows only one thing...fight and kill. That's how they get their promotions and those almighty Medals for their chests, kinda like a Mr. T. for the elite. Better they should buy a gold chain and go home and read about how this country was founded.
No where is there a Department of Offense...it's supposed to be "Defense", but what are we defending in our occupations? America is not under attack.
When terrorists bombed in Spain and Great Britain, they didn't take off and bomb the hell out of anyplace, they arrested the wrong doers. DUH.
Afghans have to decide what they want; they have to chart the course they want to take to get there; and they have to do what they need to do to realize their goals. If they are not in charge, which they aren't because Karzai stole the election, Afghans justifiably will believe our military is excluding them from the process of determining their own future, and just like us here at home, if we were faced with the same situation, they will define the foreign nation's military as an invader and their oppressor -- the enemy they must vanquish, no matter what it takes, and no amount of chocolate bars smiling soldiers hand out to children will change anything.
Soldiers are trained to fight wars and kill people, not to make friends. The past is written in blood and the Afghans will avenge it.
God help any American in Afghanistan, if we unleash Halliburton and the rest of the predatory and immensely corrupt corporations to rebuild their country as we did in Iraq. God help us too because we'll have to pick-up the tab for the no-bid-cost-plus contracts to build amazingly useful things like showers that electrocute people.
The bottom line is Al Quaida is a shadow of its former self, it's located in Pakistan, and we need to get out of Afghanistan NOW.
The only actual product our nation now provides the world is war. How proud does that make you
I don't remember any of the hijackers being from Afghanastan or Iraq. They were Saudis. But I remember Israeli politicians coming on the news while the dust was still settling and telling us we had to wage war.
Exactly what actions did we take against Saudi Arabia?
How about, why can't we get our own politicians to regulate or let implode mega-banks that were bankrupt instead of taking our money and giving it to them with no questions?
The situation in Afghanistan is appalling. Our best chance to meet our own security needs is to grit our teeth and continue the work. By all means it can't be an open ended, but at the very least we need to work to help the Afghans make real choices regarding their future.
We funded the Taliban in our effort to curtail the Soviet Union
We walked away when the Taliban succeeded
Are we going to walk away again from problems we created? We did that before in Afghanistan.
I don't want another American to die in Afghanistan. The sad, cold fact is that it is the job of soldiers is to risk their lives for the security and safety of others. This is why we honor them. This is why they should be receiving the best we have to offer.
I think war is worse then stupid but we're in this one now. Let's see it through and give our children one less enemy to fear.
Bring on the builders. Afghanistan needs schools, clinics, a dependable, honest (reasonably) government, a cash crop other then heroin. We can help them get these things. Or we can walk away.
We can't claim to be The Super Power, The Greatest Nation on Earth, and walk away. It doesn't work that way.
What we can't afford to do any longer is pretend we weren't in some way responsible for the corrupt Karzain government or the incursion of Al Qaeda in Pakistan with our aid and permission. I remember Bush and Cheney telling us Bin Laden was no longer a concern. I remember them taking the focus off Afghanastan and placing it on Iraq. I remember all the rosey stories of how much we had improved the lives of Aghanis it was all media lies. And now we are faced with a bigger mess than we had in the beginning.
We need genius now. Something better than rhetoric. Something more than ancient songs. We must have ideas that will kill the terrorist while keeping our liberty. Something that will allow America to lead the world into an era where my existence will not be a problem to another persons.
I lack her voice, but I am sure that Ms. Albright could come up with some of her own thoughts rather than the thoughts put to her by briefing notes. I do wish she had something so say. She is so wise.
I was in the room in Los Angeles when a high school student asked then-Secretary of State Albright whether she knew that this had happened. She grew testy and answered, "I am not the Armourer" of the U.S. military.
Well, someone should take responsibility for War's consequences. Albright was also the leading voice as US Ambassador to the United Nations in pulling Belgian peacekeepers out of Rwanda so that when the genocide of 1994 began there were too few international forces to stop it.
As a North American Indian and an American, I hate the genocide but I have never relied upon this fact to hide the truth to what I wanted to say. Ms. Albright has used this fact to give weight to her words without admitting the limits of her intellect. No Indian, would do such a thing. What one said was a matter of personal honour. Killing an enemy was a failure. Touching one was a victory.
I am happier as a an american indian victim of genocide. I will place mine against yours any day Madame and I certainly will not say that the death of children was a positive aspect of policy. And we are both from the same Country.
Instead we demeaned Germany, Russia and France because they had reservations about the attacks we made on Afghanastan and Iraq. We have become hated and despised because we sunk lower than those we were supposed to be fighting by resorting to torture and intrigue and held the citizens of the countries we attacked as mere colateral damage. Not even worthy of accurately reporting their losses.
Regarding Rwanda. As fallible human beings, we each make decisions that in retrospect are not wise. Perhaps we should consider her as a human being first, and then second, as a diplomat who has achieved much in spite of a few failures. .
I have the utmost respect for her.
When some accepts a post with great responsibility, they must be able, capable and willing to do the needful- even when it is admitting they/we are wrong.
If someone fails to do so, and apparently she did fail, then part of the responsibility most definitely lies on her. Or anyone else in that position.
Leadership has negative consequences too, for those who fail to lead properly.