Skip to content

SOS Hillary Clinton Townterview in the Kyrgyz Republic

December 3, 2010

MODERATOR 1: Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Applause.)

MODERATOR 2: Madam Secretary, welcome to Kyrgyzstan. And on behalf of Kyrgyz youth, I would like to thank you for this great opportunity to have this informal meeting. And, here with us, the students of the American University of Central Asia and lots of other universities, representatives of civil society organizations and young professionals, me and my colleagues will be helping you to have this dialogue.

Kaarmanbek Kuluev is the anchor of the TV talk show on the Public TV and Radio in Kyrgyzstan, and Kadyr Toktogulov, he is an AUCA alumnus and correspondent for Dow Jones news wires and Wall Street Journal.

MODERATOR 1: And, sitting next to you, we have Elvira Sarieva, who is the chairperson of the supervisory board for Kyrgyz Public TV and Radio.

MODERATOR 2: And, before we start, I would like to thank the American University in Central Asia, the U.S. Embassy in Kyrgyzstan, and Public TV and Radio Corporation for organizing this wonderful event. So, let’s start. (Applause.)

MODERATOR 1: This is not your first visit to Kyrgyzstan, and you have been to (inaudible) American University in Central Asia.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

MODERATOR 1: Many things have changed through that. Even the students, for example, the alumni is a big one. They’re waiting for you. So how does it feel to be back?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, I want to thank you for hosting this. And I want to thank, of course, our embassy and the American University of Central Asia, and the new chancellor. And I particularly want to thank public television and public broadcasting here in Kyrgyzstan. I am a big supporter of public broadcasting, and I appreciate this opportunity. (Applause.)

And it’s very exciting to be back. As you say, I helped to inaugurate the university back in 1997. It’s wonderful to return. The United States is proud to continue to support that university, and support many other important programs in Kyrgyzstan. And there could not be a better time than right now to be here, as you are forming a new government.

The constitutional referendum and the parliamentary elections were widely appreciated around the world. In fact, many people said Kyrgyzstan, in the midst of all of the problems, was able to do elections better than many other countries in other parts of the world. So I think that the people ought to be very proud of that. And the United States will continue to support the government and people. We are very committed to the future of Kyrgyzstan. So it’s wonderful to be back. (Applause.)

MODERATOR 2: Thanks so much. And I guess everybody is interested in both your key message to Kyrgyzstan and you have already met with the President of Kyrgyzstan, Roza Otunbayeva. What did you talk about?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we had an excellent meeting. And we talked about many different things. We talked about the formation of the new government, which, of course, I wish well when that is finally accomplished; the challenges facing Kyrgyzstan, in terms of economic development and opportunity and social and human development and human rights; security and stability. We really talked about a broad range of both challenges and opportunities that are facing your country.

And I think it’s fair to say that the next few years will be critically important to your future, because you are primarily students, and you are going to be able to make a contribution, not only to the improvement of your own lives, but to the improvement of your country.

So, I want to hear firsthand from you what you see happening in Kyrgyzstan, what more the United States can or should do to help to bring about a better future for the people of this country. And I enjoyed greatly my conversation with the president, because there is a great deal of hope and optimism that we have about the future. But even a friend and a partner like the United States wants to be, can only do so much. The hard work is really up to the people. And we want to support that.

MODERATOR 1: Thank you. Now, I think some of us have some questions, and so we will give the floor to students.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, was it difficult to figure out U.S. Administration’s response to April events which ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s always difficult when violence happens, and when government changes occur. But we were ready and willing to help immediately with the humanitarian issue. The results of the violence, the problems that occurred not only in April, but then again in June, where people were killed, where families were displaced, where housing was destroyed, we have provided direct aid.

And we also were quite encouraged when the interim government pledged that it would immediately carry out elections. You don’t see that everywhere. Lots of times, if there is a change in the government, especially if it’s precipitated by or accompanied by violence, you don’t see a commitment to early elections. And I remember very well lots of people around the world were saying, “They can’t have that constitutional referendum in the middle of all of the problems that are going on,” and the president and the people around her said, “No, we have to do it, because we want to prove that we didn’t do it for ourselves, we wanted to turn it over to the democratic process.” So, we were ready with help, and we were pleased at the way that – the reaction from the government and the people had proceeded, and now we stand ready to help the new government.

And there are a couple of very important issues that I think have to be addressed: continuing assistance for people in need, particularly people who have suffered because of the changes over the last month, but really trying to help with greater economic opportunity for all of the people; working on tensions between different groups in society, how do you overcome the suspicion that, unfortunately, exists; bringing to justice those who committed crimes, but doing it in a way that follows the law and the constitution and makes it clear that everyone, no matter who they are, or what they’re accused of, in a democracy, is entitled to due process; working on security and stability so that there can be a strong foundation on which the country can move forward.

So, we have been very encouraged by what we have seen since the events of April and since the violence of June.

MODERATOR 1: Let’s take some questions now.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, please.

MODERATOR 1: Please state your name.

QUESTION: Maria Ciskova (ph), American University of Central Asia. Yesterday, during the briefing with media in Kazakhstan, you said that Kyrgyz nation can be proud of their achievements. Although we in Kyrgyzstan do not have the natural resources like oil and gas, what are the achievements that Kyrgyz nation can be proud of? Thanks. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s an excellent question. First, the resilience and the determination of the people of Kyrgyzstan over the 20-plus years of your independence, it has been a turbulent time. But there has been a commitment to education, as evidenced by the universities – not just the American University of Central Asia, but the other universities represented here – and, in the last year, the commitment to parliamentary democracy. That doesn’t exist in any other country in Central Asia. And it is something that I think that the people of Kyrgyzstan deserve a lot of credit for.

A parliamentary democracy can help to ease the tensions between different regions of the country and different groups of people, because in a parliamentary democracy – as you have seen with the formation of the government – people have to compromise. Compromise is not a dirty word in a democracy. In a democracy you rarely, if ever, get 100 percent of what you or your group want, because everybody’s interests and needs have to be taken into account.

So, I would say that the strong character of the Kyrgyz people, the incredible resilience that you have shown since independence, but, most importantly, the path of democracy that you have chosen now. This will not be easy. You are pioneers. Look around you in this region. You are trying to do something that no one else has done.

And I also have to say the fact that you have the first woman president of any country in this entire area – (applause) – I loved calling your president “Madam President” today. And, in fact, I announced that the United States will sponsor a conference for women leaders from Central Asia, including Afghanistan, here in Bishkek in May. (Applause.) And we are coming because of your accomplishments.

MODERATOR 1: Madam Secretary, we have a question from this side.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, hi.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, my name is Akin (ph), I am from Kyrgyz National (inaudible). And my question is, what is the final decisions of (inaudible) air base in Kyrgyzstan? Thank you.

MODERATOR 1: It’s Manas Air Base (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, the transit center. Well, first, I publicly thank the president, the government, and the people of Kyrgyzstan for hosting this air base. This air base is the central transit point for soldiers from 49 nations going into Afghanistan, not just Americans, but from across the world, from Australia to Denmark and many places in between.

And we have had some serious issues regarding the air base that we have worked to answer and resolve. I publicly said today that we are working to help the Government of Kyrgyzstan set up an organization, transparent, that will be able to provide a significant part of the fuel, and that the funding will go into the Government of Kyrgyzstan.

We are also aware of the investigation that is going on of the oil – the fuel company of the past, and we will await the results of that investigation. Of course, if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, we will work to follow up on that. But we want to be a good partner with Kyrgyzstan.

We think that it’s not only the air base that is important to our partnership; we have a much broader partnership. We have the Peace Corps here in Kyrgyzstan. We have U.S. AID, our Agency for International Development. We have many other partnerships. But we are very grateful that the people have hosted this air base. And I explained to the president that we decided at the meeting in Lisbon, Portugal a few weeks ago, of all the nations participating in Afghanistan, that we will begin to transition to Afghan security starting next year. And the goal is to have the Afghans in charge of their own security by the end of 2014. And then we will look to see if there is any continuing mission that would be of benefit to Kyrgyzstan that would be continued there.

MODERATOR 1: Another question coming from right here.

QUESTION: My name is (inaudible) Bishkek Humanities University. First of all, I would like to say that it’s a big honor for me to be here, and to talk to the person who has been a role model for me for several years. So my question is to you.

Also, I work in an international nongovernmental organization. I think it’s the biggest nongovernmental organization in the world. So are there any steps being taken to enhance the activity of nongovernmental organizations in Kyrgyzstan (inaudible)? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you. And thank you for those kind words. And I am very happy to hear that you are working with a nongovernmental organization. Before I came in I met with some representatives of other nongovernmental organizations. I am a very big believer. I started my career as a young lawyer in a nongovernmental organization. When I got out of law school, I went to work for an organization called the Children’s Defense Fund. And I have worked over many years to promote civil society, which nongovernmental organizations are a part of.

Because, you see, if you look at countries around the world, and you think to yourself, “What are successful countries,” successful economically and politically that benefits the vast majority of their people, you need a good, functioning democratic government. You need a free market economy, properly regulated, that provides economic benefit to its people. And you need a strong, vibrant civil society. It’s like a three-legged stool, in order to be stable.

So, I think civil society has a very important role to play in Kyrgyzstan. And I would promote civil society. The United States, through our aid programs, support many organizations. In fact, universities are part of civil society, and our support for education here in Kyrgyzstan is a part of our commitment to civil society. So I am a very strong supporter, not because I have personal experience, so much as because I think civil society will be very positive for Kyrgyzstan. And it is not only an important part of a stable, democratic society, but it’s also a way for young people often to get experience that they then can take either into government or into the private sector, because you acquire certain skills that will be beneficial to you.

MODERATOR 1: There is a question on this side of the house.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from American University of Central Asia. We know that the situation in North Korea is getting complicated. And my question concerns the entire world. Will America enforce pressure on military forces? And if yes, is your country ready to deal with China, that has strong ties both with North Korea and America?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s a very important question. And North Korea poses an immediate threat to the region around us, particularly to South Korea and Japan. It poses a medium-term threat if it were to collapse to China, because of refugees and other instability. And it poses a long-term threat to the entire world, because of its nuclear program, and its export of weapons around the world.

So, the United States is very concerned about North Korea, and we want to work with the countries in the immediate region – Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, and the United States – to change the behavior of the North Korean regime, and to try to begin to move it away from its provocative behavior, like the sinking of the South Korean ship, and the attack on the South Korean island, and its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, like the recently disclosed uranium enrichment facility.

So, on Monday – I will get back to the United States over the weekend, and on Monday I will hold a meeting with the foreign ministers from South Korea and Japan. I have already spoken to high-ranking Chinese and Russian officials. And we will discuss how we can work together to try to avoid conflict.

South Korea has exercised great restraint. I want you to think – some of you will be the future leaders of Kyrgyzstan. Think if you were in a high-ranking government position, and in the last several months a neighboring country has sunk one of your naval vessels, killing 46 of your sailors, and attacked one of your villages, killing military and civilians, and you have restrained yourself because you don’t want war. So you had not attacked, but you have got to stop that behavior. You cannot permit another country to be attacking your people. If they just continue.

So, we are going to work with our partners in this effort, to try to avoid war, to try to restrain the North Koreans, to try to convince them to give up their nuclear weapons, and to try to show them that there is another way of running a country than what they are doing, which is to the benefit of a very few people, namely the rulers. So it’s very challenging, but we are determined to try to achieve those objectives.

MODERATOR 1: (Inaudible) take one question for – I’m going to ask it myself, actually. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Go right ahead.

MODERATOR 1: So (inaudible) of foreign policy of the United States, the Color Revolution, the Russian media was accusing that the United States was the one who was directing all this Color Revolution in Georgia, Ukraine, and in Kyrgyzstan. And then, as we see, like none of this Color Revolution didn’t bring as (inaudible) a result that it had promised from the beginning.

So, how do you think – I mean, first of all, is that true, that America was directing it? And, second, why this dedication of democracy was failed in the state?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say we did not control or direct any of the Color Revolutions. The United States has always stood for democracy. We have always encouraged people to speak out for human rights. And we were very pleased when the former Soviet Union dissolved, and people were given a chance to go back to their own country, have their own governments, and chart their own futures. But that’s a relatively short period of time in human history, because, remember, it was 1989, 1990, 1991 when all of this happened. So 20 years is not a lot of time for countries to have a stable, functioning democracy.

But I think if you look at all of the countries that came out from under the Soviet Union – Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, all of these countries – they are functioning very well. They are members of the European Union, they have solid democracies, they have free market economies, they respect human rights. I think Georgia has economically developed very well. They have also been – is somebody from Georgia here?

MODERATOR 2: No, just a friend of Georgia.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there is a lot to admire about what Georgia has accomplished. Georgia has accomplished economic growth, Georgia has accomplished some important reforms against corruption. Georgia has some challenges. And, of course, they have a real problem with Russia. They had a war in 2008, and they had lost two of their provinces, which Russia claims are not independent nations that they have recognized. So, Georgia, under very difficult circumstances, has accomplished quite a lot.

Ukraine, after the Orange Revolution, had an opportunity. But I will tell you, one of the problems in Ukraine is that the people in the government could not figure out how to cooperate, and they could not make decisions. And, as a result, they did not produce the kinds of changes that people expected after the Orange Revolution. They have a new government now. Their new president is trying a different approach, because, of course, they neighbor Russia. Russia was quite concerned about the Orange Revolution and about the elections that brought reformers to power. So now the new administration in Ukraine is trying to get along with Russia, Europe, and the United States, everybody. And they are trying to do a balancing act. We will see how it works. Not clear yet how it will work.

Kyrgyzstan, in my view, has a second chance with what you have just done. You had some real difficulties with coming out of the authoritarian regime imposed by the former Soviet Union. And many of the people who have come to power immediately out of the old Communist Party apparatus knew nothing about democracy. You can’t really expect someone whose only experience was in a totalitarian system, a command economy, to automatically understand everything about how complicated democracies are.

So, I think you are off to a good start, but it is just a start. Elections are just the beginning, they’re not the end of the democratic process. So you have a lot of work ahead. And the people have to hold the leaders accountable for getting together to solve problems, because that’s what democracies have to do. So, I hope next year, year after, in 5 and 10 years, we will look back and say that Kyrgyzstan is setting the model for this part of the world. And that’s what I would like to see. (Applause.)

QUESTION: Where does Kyrgyzstan come in – over here.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, there you are. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Where does Kyrgyzstan come in in your reset with Russia?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Russia and the United States, we think, have to work hard to overcome a legacy of mistrust, and try to chart a new course. So when the Obama Administration came in, President Obama and I said we’re going to try to reset relations with Russia. That doesn’t mean we will always agree, because we will not. But it does mean, where we can agree, we should. And we should try to make the world safer and more secure, fewer conflicts, fewer problems.

So, for example, the United States and Russia have worked to achieve a new treaty to lower the numbers of nuclear weapons. It’s called the New START Treaty, and we’re working hard to get our Senate to approve it right now. We have worked to reign in Iran’s nuclear program. We have worked together to help the situation in Afghanistan. So we have found areas where we can work together. We disagree on Georgia, we disagree on some of the tactics that we have seen Russians use in their relations with other countries. We disagree with their human rights record – terrible problems that journalists have had inside Russia – but we still keep working on having a positive agenda.

MODERATOR 2: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: And let me just add. So when it comes to Kyrgyzstan, we worked together after the events of April and June to try to help stabilize the situation in Kyrgyzstan. We worked together to get the OSCE to set up a police assistance program. So we have found ways to work together. And we hope that will continue.

But what’s important for us, for the United States, is that Kyrgyzstan be left alone to make its own decisions about what is best for Kyrgyzstan, and that no country interfere with or undermine the legitimate aspirations of the people of Kyrgyzstan to have a democracy that will fulfill the aspirations of you, and no one else. That is our hope. (Applause.)

MODERATOR 2: You answered my question.

QUESTION: So, good afternoon. My name is (inaudible), American University of Central Asia. America has really strong domestic policies. So how do you think – what should the new government of the Kyrgyz Republic do to develop a domestic policy of Kyrgyzstan. I mean education and health care. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s got to be at the top of the list of the new government, because democracy has to deliver results for people. So I don’t know enough to comment with much knowledge about what all the policies should be.

But emphasizing education is key, making sure that there is universal access to primary and secondary education, that there are enough university positions for people who are willing to work hard to get their college and university degree, to be able to go and do so, and afford to do so. We are going to continue to support the training of faculty and other kinds of aid for education in Kyrgyzstan.

In health care there are some good models around the world about how to create universal access to health care. And we would certainly encourage the new government to look – see, I hope what the new government does is to look around the world at what has worked – what do you want Kyrgyzstan to look like in 10 years and 20 years and 30 years – and have a plan about how to get there. And then, do the hard work of achieving those goals. Do not get deterred by inter-ethnic fighting or political advantage or all of the stuff that happens that takes your eye off what is really important.

I also think opening up the economy – try to have the freest economy in the region and support entrepreneurs, support small and medium-sized businesses, create a good investment climate, have good laws that govern the mining industry, because you have mineral resources that can help all of the people of Kyrgyzstan. Don’t let people come in and get sweetheart contracts that will benefit only a few, but look to see how the results of taking the minerals out of the ground could benefit the schools and the health of the people of Kyrgyzstan.

So, there are many models. The United Nations can help. The OSCE can help, which Kyrgyzstan is a member of. The United States will help. We really want to see you succeed. So we are ready to provide technical assistance and any other advice and help that you need. (Applause.)

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Secretary Clinton. My name is Elisa (ph), I am from International University of Central Asia. And my question is (inaudible) the government of America that it helped our country from establishing its independence. And my question is if your government grants some financial resources, in your opinion, which areas of business should be supported firstly?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the United States wants to help you fulfill your own goals. So we don’t want to come in and tell you, “This is what you should do.” We will come in and offer suggestions and recommendations.

But I think it’s important to help business on several levels. When I was here in 1997 I supported a program of microfinance. Do you know what that is? Where people are given small loans for their own small businesses, because you want a lot of economic activity, and you want as many people able to make a good living as possible. So, don’t forget small business. That needs to be taken into account.

Then you need good credit programs for medium-sized and larger businesses. So your banks have to be able to offer credit. And how do you set that up so that you have a good banking system? You know, we have had problems with our own banking system, so learn from the mistakes of others. Get a banking system that is well-regulated, but can meet the needs of the people.

You have these minerals that I referred to. How are you going to exploit them without destroying the environment, and without having the benefits only go to a small group of people? So, what laws do you need to make sure that the mining industry is well dispersed?

Agriculture, what’s the best way to improve agricultural productivity? So I would hope that the new government, when it’s established, will consist of people who have expertise, who understand business, who understand economy, who understand agriculture, education, health care. And they will then look around the world to get good advice and help, and you will have strong laws that protect business, so that when people come to do business they are not affected by corruption, they do not feel that their contracts will be dishonored. So there is a lot that can be done that will really begin to provide economic opportunity throughout the whole society. And that’s what I hope you do. (Applause.)

QUESTION: My name is (inaudible). And, first of all, welcome to our country.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: And here is my question. Now our country is living with tough times, and we should have good relations with other countries, also. And don’t you think that if that tension may arise – if tensions rise between Iran and the United States, then bilateral relations with Iran and Kyrgyzstan may have some impacts? Thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the United States doesn’t want to dictate who you have relations with. That’s up to Kyrgyzstan to decide. But we want you to go into any relations with your eyes wide open, and make sure that you are getting the best possible advantage that will help the people of Kyrgyzstan.

So, if you are doing business or in other ways involved with Iran, just know that the international community – not just the United States, but the international community, including Russia and China – passed very strong sanctions against Iran to try to convince Iran to avoid pursuing a nuclear weapons program. So, if you do business with Iran, you may run into the sanctions that the international community has placed on Iran.

So, you just have to understand that there is an effort by the higher world to try to convince Iran to be a responsible state, and to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but not for military or weapons purposes. But you are free to have relations with every country, and that is your choice. But just be sure you are going into it fully aware of both the advantages and the disadvantages in any relationship with any other country.

QUESTION: Well, I guess that’s the challenge of Kyrgyzstan, is that we are surrounded by all these neighbors with authoritarian regime, and we are trying to build democracy. And there is (inaudible) relations between the U.S. and Russia. And the media said that (inaudible) happening on the coast of Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Why do they say that? What is the reason for saying that?

QUESTION: Well, I guess – I wish I knew why journalist thinks so. But probably they’re saying it’s because Kyrgyzstan needs support from stronger countries, or at least an understanding of what’s going on in this country. And the statements done by several neighboring countries were not supportive of what’s going on in Kyrgyzstan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: And the fact that you’re making (inaudible) and getting back to (inaudible), it’s – the question is whether you think that that statement was true, that there is – that’s what’s happening on the coast of Kyrgyzstan and –

QUESTION: And is there any rivalry going on between Russia and the U.S., I mean, in the region, particularly in Kyrgyzstan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you that I do not believe that. And I hope that there is no basis for that, because we think having a positive relationship between Russia and the United States actually helps other countries. Reducing the tension between Russia and the United States creates more space for other countries to pursue their own national interests, because when Russia and the United States are in a tense situation, then each of us is going to try to get advantage with others, to the detriment of either Russia or my country. So, we think that the reset has actually been beneficial, because it’s lowered the tension between us.

Now, I do think that your question, though, has a different emphasis. You’re trying to be a parliamentary democracy. None of your other neighbors is. And it’s also the opinion of many now that parliamentary democracy in Russia has diminished in importance that it is not as democratic as it had once hoped to be. So you are – and, of course, China, another neighbor, is not a parliamentary democracy. So you are trying to do something which is, number one, very hard to start with; and number two, in a neighborhood where it’s never been tried, really, before.

So, are you going to face resentment and criticism from other countries? Probably, which is why I think it’s important for you to have relations with many, but not be dependent on any. Try to balance off all the different relations you have, and get the best help you can from other countries that wish to participate with you. But it’s also why the United States wants to strongly support you, because we think it’s good for Kyrgyzstan, but we also think it’s a good model for Central Asia. And if Kyrgyzstan can figure out how to be a parliamentary democracy, then other countries should also try to figure it out.

So, you’re right, that there is a lot of attention being paid to Kyrgyzstan. And we want to help you develop as strong a democracy as possible, so that you will be able to protect yourself, and develop yourself without pressure or interference from anyone else. And that’s really our goal. (Applause.)

MODERATOR 1: Madam Secretary, I have a question here.

QUESTION: Good afternoon. (Inaudible.) My name is (inaudible). I am a student of – I am a first year law student.

What is the single most important quality that you think will help women lawyers like me to succeed in today’s world? (Laughter.) Thank you very much. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, thank you. Good luck to you. Well, first of all, you have to be very well prepared to be a successful lawyer, and that requires what you’re doing now, getting your education. And then, once you are a lawyer, it requires working very, very hard for your client and keeping up with the law. And it also requires writing and speaking well. So, practice your writing and practice your speaking.

And it requires, for a woman, usually in today’s world still, an extra amount of effort because I think it’s – the fact that women are still sometimes judged more critically. If you are in the courtroom or you are presenting a case, it still is a fact – and this is not just in Kyrgyzstan, this is everywhere – that when a man walks into a courtroom it’s rare for someone to say, “Oh, look what he is wearing.” (Laughter.) But if you walk into a courtroom, or any young woman walks into a courtroom, people are going to notice. And that will be an additional requirement that you have to meet.

So, it’s a wonderful profession. I was – I went to law school. I was a law professor, and I was a practicing lawyer. And I very much benefited from having those experiences. And then, of course, when my husband was President, I was First Lady. And then, when I was a Senator from New York, and now as Secretary of State, I use my legal training and my legal background all the time.

So, whether you end up practicing law, or you go into government, or you go into a nongovernmental organization, or you go into business, the legal training you’re acquiring will be helpful to you. So, good luck to you. (Applause.)

MODERATOR 1: People* always touch some personality of Hillary Clinton. We have some – not just silly questions, but (inaudible) –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, I’ve never been asked a silly question in my entire life. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR 1: But they’re very short. So –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay.

MODERATOR 1: — very short answer, and –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay, I will try.

MODERATOR 1: Okay. Does Chelsea have political ambition?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR 2: Were you scared to come to Bishkek after the explosion?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m sorry, what?

MODERATOR 2: Were you scared to come to Bishkek after the explosion that we had?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Was I scared to?

MODERATOR 2: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, not at all.

MODERATOR 1: Okay. Which designers do you prefer?

SECRETARY CLINTON: What designers of clothes?

MODERATOR 1: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Would you ever ask a man that question? (Laughter.) (Applause.)

MODERATOR 1: Probably not. Probably not. (Applause.)

MODERATOR 2: How many hours do you sleep?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s my answer.

MODERATOR 1: Yeah, I got it. I got it. That was a tough one.

MODERATOR 2: How many hours do you sleep?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it really depends upon what else is going on. I’ve been kind of busy this week, so I haven’t slept many hours. But I try to get six hours. And then on the weekends, I try to make up for it, because you can’t go too long with too little sleep. It starts to impair your judgment. And so even when I can’t sleep a lot during the week, I try to catch up on the weekends.

MODERATOR 2: Okay. Which is your favorite movie?

SECRETARY CLINTON: My favorite movie? Oh, my gosh. I have seen so many movies over the course of my life. I had different favorite movies at different stages of my life. So when I was younger – much younger than you – (laughter) – I liked the “Wizard of Oz,” with – the classic version with Judy Garland. I loved that movie. I like the classic movie, “Gone with the Wind.” (Applause.)

When I was college, “Casablanca” was a very favorite movie, and, I don’t know, I must have seen it 100 times. I really like the actress Meryl Streep. So I love just about anything she is in, particularly “Out of Africa,” with Robert Redford.

Anyway, I could go on and on. But I like many different movies.

MODERATOR 2: What was the first words of Chelsea?

SECRETARY CLINTON: The first word of Chelsea? Well, “Mommy,” of course. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR 1: What do you read during your long flights?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have to read a lot of briefing papers. You see these people that I travel with? They are constantly producing papers that they expect me to read and understand on short notice, and I get piles of it. I read a lot of newspapers, because I have to keep up with what’s going on in the world. But I also like to read for pleasure, so I read mysteries, I read romances. I read things – I try to read at night, even just for a minute before I fall asleep, just to kind of clear my head.

MODERATOR 2: What inspires you?

SECRETARY CLINTON: People who have the courage to stand up for human rights of themselves, and particularly others. That I find very inspiring. Leaders who put the needs of their people and their rights ahead of their own personal benefit.

MODERATOR 1: Where do you go for vacation?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I love New York, so I often vacation in New York.

MODERATOR 2: Do you have vacations?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know what? There was a period of time when I had not had any vacations. But last year my family actually took a vacation, and I highly recommend it. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR 1: Okay. And the last question. When will the American troops withdraw from Afghanistan? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: 2011 is the time to start with the transition, not just Americans, but all of the 49 nations. And then the Afghans will be expected to take charge of their own security by the end of 2014.

MODERATOR 1: We will probably have your aid in telling us that – last question.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, there are so many hands. I will have to come back. (Applause.)

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, my name is (inaudible), I am an American University alumna and film maker. My question is related to education. Would it be possible to improve the number of Peace Corps volunteers coming into Kyrgyz schools, please? (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, yes. I met some of our Peace Corps volunteers at our embassy meeting just now, and I will look into that. And let me ask you. Is the most important benefit from Peace Corps or other American volunteers the teaching of English?

AUDIENCE: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay. And what else are you saying?

QUESTION: Not the only.

SECRETARY CLINTON: What else?

QUESTION: What else is the defense of liberty and a stronger sense of identity we get from that sort of teaching. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: I will look into that, and we will see what we can do to try to provide more of that. (Applause.)

QUESTION: Can we please exchange students in America?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. Let’s increase exchanges both ways. I would like more Americans to come to Kyrgyzstan, and I would certainly welcome more students from Kyrgyzstan to come to the United States. So we will look at how we can increase that, too. (Applause.)

And what other ideas? Give me some more ideas. Yes, just one more. I know I’m supposed to go, but I really welcome suggestions like that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible), International University of Central Asia. I would like to ask the Secretary a question. What is the strategical significance of having a USA military base in Kyrgyzstan in the next five years? And how do you see that significance changing?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the significance of it now is that Kyrgyzstan by hosting the base is assisting the efforts in Afghanistan. And the reason that’s important for Kyrgyzstan is because we do not want terrorism exported to Kyrgyzstan. So this is not only about the 49 countries whose troops go through the air base to Afghanistan, it is about stabilizing Afghanistan so violence and extremism does not get exported from Afghanistan into Central Asia.

So I think there are benefits, not just material benefits but real cooperative benefits that come through Kyrgyzstan. And the future will be up to the Government of Kyrgyzstan once a new government is established.

Thank you all. Thank you. (Applause.)

And some other photos from yesterday that I didn’t get a chance to post. I’ll try to catch up some this weekend:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with U.S. servicemen at the Manas airbase outside Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Thursday, Dec. 2, 2010.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton seen at a signing ceremonyl in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, Thursday, Dec. 2, 2010. Clinton also signed a U.S.-Uzbek cooperation agreement that enables arrangements in which the two governments and U.S. and Uzbek institutes, universities, research centers, and private companies can cooperate on science and technology. (AP Photo/Anvar Ilyasov)

5 Comments leave one →
  1. Thain permalink
    December 3, 2010 9:37 am

    OT: Obama’s need to appease the Israel Firsters in this country has destroyed the peace process. US foreign policy is held hostage to a small elite group that talks cheap about two states but who jealously guard israeli interests. They also happen to vote Democrat. Too bad for us.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/2010/11/20101120114435124111.html

    Seen any pressure on Bibi by the Israel apologists and the US Jewish community or members of Congress? Nope.

    Two states, blah, blah, blah.

    Hellooooooo apartheid! And guess what? The Zionists will refuse to allow the US government to ever call it apartheid even if it is down the road. We’ll just keep killing UN resoluations and kissing Israel’s ass and protecting them. We’ll keep crying “delegitimizer!” to anyone who speaks the truth.

    Great policy, really. Obama, what’s the point?

  2. Steve permalink
    December 3, 2010 10:02 am

    There are parts of Israel where women can’t ride on buses with men, they are not allowed at certain parts of the Western Wall and there are many, many religious laws in place that discriminate against women and non-Jews despite the oft-stated claim by people in the US that Israel is a secular (and democratic) state. It is NOT a secular state. I lived there, trust me.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/anat-hoffman_n_643669.html

    The issue of the Wall is becoming more contentious due to that Palestinian official who wrote provocative things about it in some silly report on the web. Of course, the US reaction was TOTALLY overblown, but that’s par for the course.

    Thain- you are right, it’s a full blown panderfest and it will continue to be until after 2012- elections are always the excuse but really it’s all the time because when are there ever not pending elections in the House, Senate, Governors races or Presidency? There are always elections around the corner.

  3. Carolyn-Rodham permalink
    December 3, 2010 10:53 am

    Love the pictures of Hill with the troops – thanks stacy.

  4. Mohammad Ali Jan, permalink
    January 25, 2011 7:09 pm
    786/110,..The ” ECONOMIC WORLD WAR CIRSIS ” is gift of 11/9, for the Whom start the Holy war in ” ISLAMIC COUNTRIES,” . They know that after attack, Whats goin on in theWorlds Politics ? This 30 years WAR’S are not JOKE. Millions & millions ( Two Million ) mens& woman are Killed, It WERE A DIRTIEST GAME OF THE WORLD, Dont worry The Time Will be Come, When Revange Shall be Start. No Problem. Its not end of theWorld. The American’s Advisor are so POOR, Like BIRZENCKEY, BUSH, ( shoes in Iraq. ), Bush father, Tony Biler of British, hero, who become Zero, Israeli’s, Canadian, German’s, ( Why so many Corruption’s Cases in These Governement’s ? ) & Other’s. ? There may be reasons for failure in Afghanistan, but don’t pin it on “ a super-simplified version of Afghanistan’s history” distorted by “the past 35 years of seemingly unceasing warfare.”.Iraq, Pelistean, Labanon, & all over the World. They never success by this Playing dirty Game. The WAR is out of control for them. They are Trapped Badly in this Holy WAR’s. ( apossed by Christian Zionist ) ? …This essay Cancerous Pakistan’s Ambidextrous puppet Taliban & Jihadist Policies: Threat to the subcontinent on June 25, 2010 in the context of Indo-Afghan-Iran subcontinent. More was revealed by David Coleman Headley to the USA authorities and the Indian National Investigation Agency about the roles of the ISI and elements of Pakistan army, in fact, the state of Pakistan, in planning the attack on Mumbai. P. Chidambaram had physically carried the messages to Pakistan and G. K. Pillai, Chidambaram’s Secretary merely repeated what his minister had conveyed personally to his counterpart in Pakistan. Now, the revelations made by WikiLeaks in over 90,000 documents covering the periods of General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani as former ISI chief and the present ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha have confirmed (in about 30,000) documents) about ISI linkages with the Taliban and its active involvement in targeting and eliminating Americans and Indians. Truth does not suit Pakistan. Pakistan risked sabotaging the bilateral talks when the role of the ISI was pointed out by the Indian Home Secretary. Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi brushed aside all diplomatic niceties and insulted the Indian Foreign Minister by raising the ISI issue. There is nothing new in it. Z. A. Bhutto, as the Foreign Minister of Pakistan had yelled against his Indian counterpart and his daughter had also shouted against the Indian foreign minister. The WikiLeaks documents are damaging. Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harboured strong suspicions that the ISI has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants, according to a trove of secret military field reports made public on Sunday. The documents, made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders. Taken together, the reports indicate that American soldiers on the ground are inundated with accounts of a network of Pakistani assets and collaborators that runs from the Pakistani tribal belt along the Afghan border, through southern Afghanistan, and all the way to the capital, Kabul. While current and former American officials could not corroborate individual reports, they said that the portrait of the spy agency’s collaboration with the Afghan insurgency was broadly consistent with other classified intelligence. Some of the reports describe Pakistani intelligence working alongside al-Qaida to plan attacks. Experts cautioned that although Pakistan’s militant groups and al-Qaida work together, it may be difficult to prove such connection. Hillary Clinton recently said that some junior ISI officers are aware of location of the al Qaeda leaders.The records also contain first hand accounts of American anger at Pakistan’s unwillingness to confront insurgents who launched attacks near Pakistani border posts, moved openly by the truckload across the frontier, and retreated to Pakistani territory for safety. The behind-the-scenes frustrations of soldiers on the ground and glimpses of what appear to be Pakistani skullduggery contrast sharply with the frequently rosy public pronouncements of Pakistan as an ally by American officials, looking to sustain a drone campaign over parts of Pakistani territory to strike at Qaida havens. Administration officials also want to keep nuclear-armed Pakistan on their side to safeguard NATO supplies flowing on routes that cross Pakistan to Afghanistan. The reports suggest, however, that the Pakistani military has acted as both ally and enemy, as its spy agency runs what American officials have long suspected is a double game — appeasing certain American demands for cooperation while angling to exert influence in Afghanistan through many of the same insurgent networks that the Americans are fighting to eliminate. Behind the scenes, both Bush and Obama administration officials as well as top American commanders have confronted top Pakistani military officers with accusations of ISI complicity in attacks in Afghanistan, and even presented top Pakistani officials with lists of ISI and military operatives believed to be working with militants. Several Congressional officials said that despite repeated requests over the years for information about Pakistani support for militant groups, they usually receive vague and inconclusive briefings from the Pentagon and CIA. Nonetheless, senior lawmakers say they have no doubt that Pakistan is aiding insurgent groups. “The burden of proof is on the government of Pakistan and the ISI to show they don’t have ongoing contacts,” said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee who visited Pakistan this month and said he and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman, confronted Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, yet again over the allegations. Such accusations are usually met with angry denials, particularly by the Pakistani military, which insists that the ISI severed its remaining ties to the Talibans years ago. An ISI spokesman in Islamabad said that the agency would have no comment until it saw the documents. Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, said, “The documents circulated by WikiLeaks do not reflect the current on-ground realities.” The man, the United States has depended on for cooperation in fighting the militants and who holds most power in Pakistan, the head of the army, Gen Parvez Ashfaq Kayani, ran the ISI from 2004 to 2007, a period from which many of the reports are drawn. How can Kayani be absolved of the accusations? American officials have described Pakistan’s spy service as a rigidly hierarchical organization that has little tolerance for “rogue” activity. But Pakistani military officials give the spy service’s “S Wing”, which runs external operations against the Afghan government and India, broad autonomy, a buffer that allows top military officials deniability..American officials have rarely uncovered definitive evidence of direct ISI involvement in a major attack. But in July 2008, the CIA’s deputy director, Stephen R Kappes, confronted Pakistani officials with evidence that the ISI helped plan the deadly suicide bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul. From the current trove, one report shows that Polish intelligence warned of a complex attack against the Indian Embassy a week before that bombing, though the attackers and their methods differed. The ISI was not named in the report warning of the attack. Another, dated August 2008, identifies a colonel in the ISI plotting with a Taliban official to assassinate President Hamid Karzai. The report says there was no information about how or when this would be carried out. The account could not be verified. Lt Gen Hamid Gul ran the ISI from 1987 to 1989, a time when Pakistani spies and the CIA joined forces to run guns and money to Afghan militias who were battling Soviet troops in Afghanistan. After the fighting stopped, he maintained his contacts with the former Mujahedeen, who would eventually transform themselves into the Taliban. And more than two decades later, it appears that General Gul is still at work. The documents indicate that he has worked tirelessly to reactivate his old networks, employing familiar allies like Jaluluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose networks of thousands of fighters are responsible for waves of violence in Afghanistan. For example, one intelligence report describes him meeting with a group of militants in Wana, the capital of South Waziristan, in January 2009. There, he met with three senior Afghan insurgent commanders and three “older” Arab men, presumably representatives of al-Qaida, who the report suggests were important “because they had a large security contingent with them.” The gathering was designed to hatch a plan to avenge the death of “Zamarai,” the nom de guerre of Osama al-Kini, who had been killed days earlier by a CIA drone attack. Mr Kini had directed Qaida operations in Pakistan and had spearheaded some of the group’s most devastating attacks. The plot hatched in Wana that day, according to the report, involved driving a dark blue Mazda truck rigged with explosives from South Waziristan to Afghanistan’s Paktika Province, a route well known to be used by the insurgents to move weapons, suicide bombers and fighters from Pakistan. In a show of strength, the Taliban leaders approved a plan to send 50 Arab and 50 Waziri fighters to Ghazni Province in Afghanistan, the report said. General Gul urged the Taliban commanders to focus their operations inside Afghanistan in exchange for Pakistan turning “a blind eye” to their presence in Pakistan’s tribal areas. It was unclear whether the attack was ever executed. The United States has pushed the United Nations to put General Gul on a list of international terrorists, and top American officials said they believed he was an important link between active-duty Pakistani officers and militant groups. Senior Pakistani officials consistently deny that General Gul still works at the ISI’s behest, though several years ago, after mounting American complaints, Pakistan’s president at the time, Pervez Musharraf, was forced publicly to acknowledge the possibility that former ISI officials were assisting the Afghan insurgency. Despite his denials, General Gul keeps close ties to his former employers. The reports also chronicle efforts by ISI officers to run the networks of suicide bombers that emerged as a sudden, terrible force in Afghanistan in 2006. The detailed reports indicate that American officials had a relatively clear understanding of how the suicide networks presumably functioned, even if some of the threats did not materialize. It is impossible to know why the attacks never came off — either they were thwarted, the attackers shifted targets, or the reports were deliberately planted as Taliban disinformation. one report, from Dec 18, 2006, describes a cyclical process to develop the suicide bombers. First, the suicide attacker is recruited and trained in Pakistan.” The Target Killings, and Suicide Bombings are going to Hell .” Then, reconnaissance and operational planning gets underway, including scouting to find a place for “hosting” the suicide bomber near the target before carrying out the attack. The network, it says, receives help from the Afghan police and the Ministry of Interior. Several of the reports describe current and former ISI operatives, including General Gul, visiting madrasas near the city of Peshawar, a gateway to the tribal areas, to recruit new fodder for suicide bombings. One report, labeled a “real threat warning” because of its detail and the reliability of its source, described how commanders of Mr. Hekmatyar’s insurgent group, Hezb-i-Islami, ordered the delivery of a suicide bomber from the Hashimiye madrasa, run by Afghans. The boy was to be used in an attack on American or NATO vehicles in Kabul during the Muslim Festival of Sacrifices that opened Dec. 31, 2006. According to the report, the boy was taken to the Afghan city of Jalalabad to buy a car for the bombing, and was later brought to Kabul. It was unclear whether the attack took place. The documents indicate that these types of activities continued throughout last year. From July to October 2009, nine threat reports detailed movements by suicide bombers from Pakistan into populated areas of Afghanistan, including Kandahar, Kunduz , Kabul., and Quetta.. ( The SUICIDE BOMBERS, & TARGET KILLING ARE GOING TO HELL. ), Just now in Lahore, Karachi, Quetta, Karbala, Najaf, Eygpet, Mascow, Sudan & Peshawar, Khohat., but The BLACK WATER ARE GOING TO HEAVEN, ? ( The Christian Zionist HEAVEN. ). The Graveyard of Muslim’s are in IMF, WORLD BANK, & Jewish Lobbi’s Grounds, Lay out. Some of the bombers were sent to disrupt Afghanistan’s presidential elections, held last August. In other instances, American intelligence learned that the Haqqani, network sent bombers at the ISI’s behest to strike Indian officials, development workers and engineers in Afghanistan. Other plots were aimed at the Afghan government… But the reports also charge that the ISI directly helped organize Taliban offensives at key junctures of the war. On June 19, 2006, ISI operatives allegedly met with the Taliban leaders in Quetta, the city in southern Pakistan where American and other Western officials have long believed top Taliban leaders have been given refuge by the Pakistani authorities. At the meeting, according to the report, they pressed the Taliban to mount attacks on Maruf, a district of Kandahar that lies along the Pakistani border. HI, American’s, Canadian’s, Britisher’s, Israeli’s, & Nato . [ We have faught you a thousand years. We will never give up and will fight you for another thousand years! .] MOJAHID…ONE day Last American Army & other’s Army, Shall Leave Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Iraq. The USA, UK, & NATO are totally failed in their objectives in Afghanistan. They need two million army in Afghanistan to control them. Its not puppet Taliban & Al-qaeda, its Afghani’s & Afghanistan case, who can fight thousand years easly. Its better for them to leave Afghanistan, and go to Balochistan for American army. The Quetta & Balochistan is fighting place for Indian, American’s, Al-Qaeida,Ussr,& Pakistan Army in comming day’s.The Quetta is becoming fighting city in the World, as Kabul, Kandahar, Baghdad, Beriut, Bosni, etc. Now a days Quetta is CIA Headquater, for Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, Central Asia, China, Ussr, and so many other Countries The Balochistan is Last fighting place in the World, for these Big Powers. The American are foolish nation, they have no MIND, they are Mad. They are Sadeast Countries of the World. What can they get from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, & Pakistan. ? The Afghanista is GRAVEYARD’s for American’s Nato,( Ali BaBa & Forty Theive’s ) Birtisher’s, Canadian Army,& German Army etc. The World Zionist, World Anarchist, World Jewish Cngrees, Mossad, Fbi, Cia, Pentagone, Mi5, Mi6, Raw, Freemassion, & so many other Agencies are Failed very Badly in Afghanistan,Iraq,Pelistean, Labnan, & all over the World. They never sucssec by this Playing dirty Game. The WAR is out of countrool for them. They are Trap Badly in this WAR. They want controol whole World, But they cant controol” 1″ ONE PERCENT OF THE WORLD, They are ” Out OF Date.” Like USSR in 90’s . The Dallor Game’s is over, Dallor is ” DEMONETIES “in the World. Why one dallor note have a single Devil Eyes of Freemasion’s, Slogans. ? The Seven Flet or Six Flet or Seven Sister’s are also uselees. You cant Throw ATOMIC BOMB on Kabul, Islamabad, Tehran, Baghdad, Makka, Yemen,or other Countries.YES you can use it on Mascow, Dehly, or Bejung, or Tel Aviv only. …..SinSince 2001, RAND Corporation political sciens has been observing the reinvigorated insurgency in Afghanistan and weighing the potency of its threat to the country’s future and American interests in the region. There is no American interests in the region now a day’s. The roots of the re-emergence in the expected areas: the deterioration of security after the ousting of the Puppet Al-Qaeda and Taliban regime in 2002, the U.S.’s focus on Iraq as its foreign policy priority and Pakistan’s role as a haven for insurgents. The revisits Afghan history, specifically the invasions by the British in the mid- and late-19th century and the Russians in the late-20th to rue how little the U.S. has learned from these two previous wars. The sheds light on why Pakistan—a consistent supporter of the Taliban—continues to be a key player in the region’s future. It’s makes important arguments for the inclusion of local leaders, particularly in rural regions, but his diligent panorama of the situation fails to consider whether the war in Afghanistan is already lostce. After 2001 American policy in Afghanistan , its better than ever…The American’s are bigger terrorist then Pakistani Taliban, terrorism, and the United States, this is the place to start, ether the war in Afghanistan is already lost. A deeply researched, clearly written, and well-analyzed account of the failures of American policies in Afghanistan,In the Graveyard of Empires lays out a plan to avoid a potential quagmire. This is the time, we will be mandatory reading for policymakers from Washington to Kabul but it will also help to inform Americans who want to understand what is likely to be the greatest foreign policy challenge of the Obama administrationthe answer to the million-dollar question….until nobody actually sought an empirical answer. Nobody crunched the numbers. A useful and generally lively account of what can go wrong when outsiders venture onto the Afghan landscape. Those ventures have generally not turned out well…This is ominous…..The war goes on until 2025.I’m no Islam scholar and no military strategist. I’m pretty good at divining common sense and practicality as opposed to jingoism and unrealistic goals.So that’s why I’d say nine years this October is much too long to wage war in Afghanistan, and 1,400 American’s and more then 500 from Nato & other countries deaths there are unacceptable.I’d go home and let all the bad guys sort it out among themselves. I’d tell the Afghans it’s their country and their society. Just don’t harbor any people who will strike at America or we’ll be back to scour your earth from the skies, with most of the world’s blessings.I’m not buying that we’re there to make sure children can go to school and women aren’t abused. Those are nice goals, but not realistic in that country and culture.We can suggest American ideals, but we can’t export them.The largest tribal group there is the Pashtun, and that’s also the main source of the radical Taliban, who feel we are imposing Christian principles on an Islamic population that cannot educate girls, equalize women and be religiously tolerant and still be Islamic.Additionally, we’ve supported a very corrupt government, warlords and an abusive military establishment. People are arrested right and left and imprisoned or disappear.Things are not going well, and I’ve not read anything by any expert that says we’re making headway, that the Taliban are disbanding or that anyone without a government contract loves President Hamid Karzai and his people.Targeting and killing Taliban commanders & other Afghani’s isn’t making us popular.Not all Afghans love the puppet Taliban, & Al-Qaeda, but they don’t like to see Westerners with their weapon technology killing off their folks.We Americans are constantly told: “Don’t compare this war with the one we lost in Vietnam.” I do and I can’t help it. The more Viet Cong we killed the more villagers said, “Hey, those people are us.” Vietnamese who had government contracts liked us, but to the average citizen we were just another in a long line of occupiers that had to be pushed out. And we were cannot see an end strategy in Afghanistan. It’s really open-ended. Our president has said we may have to be there a while. We were in Vietnam a good 15 years.I know it hurts some of you to think of pulling out. Makes us look militarily weak. I guess, in some of these smaller cultural wars, we are. Our drones and bombs don’t seem to mean much or even intimidate much.So how much treasure and blood will you tolerate just to say “America doesn’t back down”? …The Pakistan is a one of free countries in the World, somany people came for living from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Africa, India, Central Asian countries, Arab countries, Usa, Uk, Israel, ( 7000 Jewish Company are Working in Pakistan, from five dicats, since 1950’s ) Pelistean, from uk, usa, ussr, china, europ & so many other countrie’s, its a good countries for all .But now a days AMERICAN dirty game is destuerbing Pakistan Badly.Her dooler’s play dirty game in Pakistan. In 70’s he devided Pakistan in two parts, East Pakistan, ( Bangladiesh ) & west Pakistan. Just now he want’s Pakistan in so many pecies, as example, Greater Balochistan,Sindo Deish, Pakhtonistan, Mohajirestan, Greater Kashmir, incoulding Kaffristan, Hunza, Gelgit, Iskardu. Chatral Sawat, velly, Wakhan, sungkiyang, Sri nagar, its Nooristan STATE, For ” Karim Aga Khan STATE.” ( This state is 186000 k.m. area ). for this long combind project working group are Cia, Mossad, Mi5, Mi6, Fbi, World Zionist, Israel, World Jewish Congrees, World Anarchist, & Afghan Genral Roostam are working with each other’s….The Indian & Pakistani’s are brother’s. The Late Muhammad Ali Jinnah & Ghandi was brother. Muslim & Hindu are brother’s. Hindu & Muslim are not Terrorists. Like India,Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria.The American’s & Communist Governments, Spies, and Military China, North Korea, Vietnamhe that promote leftist sabotage of national interests within the CIA and US Army that work to give American’s terrorists the same, or more civil rights than American taxpayers. that through a program of subversion in lawfare have effectively destroyed American intelligence agencies’ ability to obtain HUMINT from the interrogation of terrorists prisoners.Incompetent, Pro-Muslim Departments and Agencies that have subverted the FBI and other American law enforcement agencies by instituting politically “correct” pro-terrorist agency brainwashing programs, paid for by taxpayer dollars. Major Media Conglomerates that produce and disseminate leftist propaganda through repetitious themes presented on television, in movies, and in other media. This propaganda, based on lies, deceives, dis-informs, intimidates, and otherwise coerces the American public towards accepting control by political “correctness”. This control, the enemy of free speech, allows only one side of any argument to be presented…..The” KANDAHAR ” Battle is tough for American’s, & Nato army.May be KANDAHARI’s are ” FUCK ” The American’s & Nato Armies, because in 90’s they fucked The Ussr Army. The planned offensive would be carried out primarily by Arabs and Pakistanis, the report said, and a Taliban commander, “Akhtar Mansoor,” warned that the men should be prepared for heavy losses. “The foreigners agreed to this operation and have assembled 20 4×4 trucks to carry the fighters into areas in question,” it said. While the specifics about the foreign fighters and the ISI are difficult to verify, the Taliban did indeed mount an offensive to seize control in Maruf in 2006. Afghan government officials and Taliban fighters have widely acknowledged that the offensive was led by the Taliban commander Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, who was then the Taliban shadow governor of Kandahar. The flood of reports of Pakistani complicity in the insurgency has at times led to barely disguised tensions between American and Pakistani officers on the ground. Meetings at border outposts set up to develop common strategies to seal the frontier and disrupt Taliban movements reveal deep distrust among the Americans of their Pakistani counterparts. Nothing happened, wrote Col Barry Shapiro, an American military liaison officer with experience in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, after an Oct. 13, 2006, meeting. “Despite the number of reports and information detailing the concerns,” Colonel Shapiro wrote, “we continue to see no change in the cross-border activity and continue to see little to no initiative along the PAK border” by Pakistan troops. The Pakistani Army “will only react when asked to do so by US forces,” he concluded. Some materials about contents of the WikiLeaks documents have been borrowed from the article ‘Pakistan aids insurgency in Afghanistan, reports assert’ by Mark Mazzetti, Jane Perlez, Eric Schmitt and Andrew W Lehren, New York Times, Jul 26, 2010. The WikiLeaks papers had not fallen on the Americans like the Pentagon paper leaks of 1971 that unbarred the ugly war of America in Vietnam and the lies the White House was telling to the Americans. But it has again proved to the American people that their country is involved in an infructuous war and their money is going down the drain to the pockets of the generals in Pakistan and the Talibans. As Frank Rich says in his article in New York Times (Kiss the War Goodbye Aug 2, 2010), “Obama was right to say that the leaked documents “don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate in Afghanistan,” but that doesn’t mean the debate was resolved in favor of his policy. Americans know that our counterinsurgency partner, Hamid Karzai, is untrustworthy. They know that the terrorists out to attack us are more likely to be found in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Afghanistan. And they are starting to focus on the morbid reality, highlighted in the logs, of the de facto money-laundering scheme that siphons American taxpayers’ money through the Pakistan government to the Taliban, who then disperse it to kill Americans.” Pakistan has officially protested against the documents and certain elements have even organized protests against British Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement about Pakistan’s diabolical involvement against Indian security. The suave Pakistani ambassador in Washington Mr. Haqqani has tried his best to water down the leakage by saying that most of the documents are old, not verifiable and their sources are doubtful. Obama administration has just started soul searching about the source of the leakage and there appears to be hardly any coordination between the White House, the Congress/Senate, Pentagon, the NSA and the CIA. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her latest visit gifted 500 million dollars to Pakistan as additional incentive. It appears that the Secretary of State, the President, the Pentagon and the CIA are working at cross-purposes. Both Pakistan and the USA are preparing for the next strategic discussions by the fourth quarter of this year. Yet there is no indication in Washington, in the light of WikiLeaks documents, what the USA intends to do with its Pakistan policy vis a vis its war in Afghanistan. Will it allow Pakistan army and the ISI to play the Haqqani, Omar and Hekmatyar groups against American and NATO forces; help the Talibans to blow up NATO supply convoys, plant roadside bombs and target kill American soldiers? Or Will the different power centre’s of the USA unite (Pentagon especially) and give loud messages to Pakistan that its commitment to war against the Taliban should be total and the ISI should no more be used to play double roles there and sabotage peace in the subcontinent. In case the USA wants steady strategic relationship with India it should bring on agenda of its discussion with Pakistan the issue of Mumbai attack and ISI role in fomenting unrest in Kashmir. Many American observers feel that Obama administration is walking on thin ropes of diplomatic jugglery, and may be compelled to adopt a fresh outlook towards Pakistan. What are the options before Barack Obama administration? On Iraq war issue President Bush had burnt his fingers and by waging war on Afghanistan (forcing Pakistan to be an ally) he had committed another blunder. Obama is forced to carry the ghost of Bush history to the logical conclusion. Two irrelevant wars have damaged US economy and there is no sign of early recovery. Obama’s dream of a new America appears to be far beyond the horizon. His popularity remains only at 40% and his chance of getting a second term does not appear to be bright. The Pakistani Establishment (the Army and the ISI) understands that the USA might walk out of Afghanistan in another two to three wars. Within these three years General Kayani (his extension period) should be able to consolidate Pakistan’s presence in Afghanistan through direct and indirect ISI involvement with the Taliban groups and create a solid space for it. The vacuum created by exit of the USA would be filled in by Pakistan and India, the biggest regional power, would have no role to play in Pakistan. The Taliban would again be used by Pakistan to accentuate Pakistan’s proxy war in Kashmir. In the meantime, Pakistan has started playing a new game in Indian Kashmir. With a view to deflect global attention from Pakistani links with Taliban and ISI roles in Afghanistan, to divert attention from the charges made by David Cameron and other internal tensions between the elected government and the army the ISI has started funding certain separatist elements in J&K to whip up sustained unrest. Pakistan intends to point out to Washington, London, and other European capitals that India should be hauled up for human rights violation and the US should mediate on Kashmir issue as a precondition to Pakistan disengaging from supporting the Taliban. General Kayani and ISI chief Pasha are single mindedly pursuing this aspect and international observers believe that President Zardari may play this card during his ensuing visit to Europe. There are certain moves to talk to ‘good Talibans.’ Pakistan wants Karzai to talk to Hekmatyar and Haqqani group of Talibans, ( Cia Agents. ) whereas Karzai is not willing to do that. puppet Obama ( He is under Jewish Lobby. ) administration has accepted the principle of talks but not at the cost of giving up the war. Karzai is depending on his brothers and relatives for conducting the talks and refusing to make it broad based. The Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek Afghans are not willing to talk with the Pushtuns. The USA is also not willing to talk only to Pushtun leadership. Therefore, Pakistan’s and Karzai’s initiative to start talking to Talibans are not progressing in any positive directions, though all quarters agree that reconciliation is the best way out. Obama and some of his advisors see an opportunity to get out of Afghanistan if some sort of negotiated settlement is possible. But inside his own Democratic party there are many opponents. Some elements in the Pentagon, in talks between general to general favour the idea of talk, but they are not aware of the tribal intricacies in Afghanistan and Pakistan latent strategic interest in the country. Inside USA there are lobbies which are opposed to talks with ISI controlled Taliban groups. At a congressional hearing on July 27, David Kilcullen, a former counterinsurgency advisor, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, and Gen David H. Petraeus, who has shifted from helming the war in Iraq to the one in Afghanistan, said the Haqqani Network is acting at the behest of its Pakistani puppet masters. Ruling out US or Afghan negotiations with the Haqqani Network, Kilcullen said, “If you negotiate with the organ grinder’s monkey, you may as well negotiate with the organ grinder himself.” He explained that there was “considerable collusion” between the Haqqani Network and “elements within some parts of the security establishment in Pakistan”. Pakistani officials deny the link still exists. In a statement, Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, said the documents on WikiLeaks “do not reflect the current onground realities”. But not everyone is buying that. What are the options? Militarily, a situation may not soon arise for the USA to run away from Afghanistan, though 58% of people expect the President to pull out by mid 2011. However, home realities may force Obama or his successor to disengage from Afghanistan after arranging some kind of international recognition of Afghanistan’s “neutral status” respected by the major powers and all regional powers like India, Iran, and Pakistan etc. Let’s have a look at the map of Afghanistan. The whole of Afghanistan is not controlled by Karzai government or the US/NATO forces. Iran has a big say in the provinces of Nimroz, Farah, Heart and part of Balochistan; Pakistan controls Helmand, Kandahar, Qalat. Paktia, Khost, Ghazni, Gandez, Jalalabad, Asadabad etc provinces through Talibans of Mullah Omar, Hekmatyar and Haqqani groups ( Cia Failed agents ). In Northern areas non-Pushtuns have their own militia and are generally aligned to the western forces. The Tajik, Uzbek and Turkmenistani elements have more or less good relationship with the USA and the Russians. China has a common border only with the Afghan province of Faizabad. But China’s presence in Pakistan is rather significant and China is an important member of Sanghai Cooperation Organisation, in which Central Asian Republics, Russia and China are permanent members. Amongst other nations India, Pakistan and Iran enjoy observer status and Afghanistan has the status of a guest. There cannot be any international solution of the Afghan problem without Chinese involvement and agreement. Pakistan knows that it has the tacit support of China behind its ambidextrous policies in Afghanistan and Jammu & Kashmir. In most of such security related matters China and Pakistan work in tandem. There cannot be any solution without Iranian help as well. Iran is the only Shia nation in the world which has reckonable military power. The USA tried to use Sunni leader Saddam Hussain against Iran. Later they themselves destroyed him. Conflict between Iran and the west is not new. It started over the oil issue and now it has expanded to the contentious issue of nuclear capability of Iran. The USA is in the historic habit of looking at Iran through the Sunni Wahhabi prism of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, moderate Jordan and other allies in the Middle East. The western powers have not gone back into the history of culturally rich Persia which now desperately wants to attain geostrategic status in the Middle East. Western dalliance with Sunni powers has produced wars after wars. Should they not have a second strategic and geopolitical look at Iran? In case the USA cannot tame the Pakistan army and neutralize the ISI, as proved by WikiLeaks documents, how long it would allow itself to be blackmailed by a country which is nuclear empowered and which has the tarnished record of nuclear proliferation? Can the entire American people agree to pay the Pakistani generals for all the time to come in the name of fighting terrorism, while the same army diverts the fund to kill the American soldiers? A vibrant democracy like America shall not allow its President, the Pentagon, the NSA and the CIA to fund Pakistan with American blood-money for getting their own children killed. The bluff has already been called. It is matter of time when Washington should think of alternatives to an unfaithful bed partner. Americans are open to radical thinking. What’s wrong if a Shia power develops nuclear research capability in collaboration with the USA and Russia? What if such an agreement is reached? In that case can Iran be used to secure the flanks of Afghanistan in a multination guarantee? Perhaps such an agreement with Iran can be a viable step to ensuring a “neutral” Afghanistan and preventing Pakistan from unduly fiddling with its internal and external affairs. There are recent indications that both Moscow and Washington are gradually looking at the feasibility of this option. Friendly Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan should be better assurance to “neutral” Afghanistan than the wolf- at-the-door, Pakistan. Is a “neutral” Afghanistan possible? Well, some loud thoughts are rebounding from one capital to another. The Kabul Conference held on July 20, 2010 had discussed many items regarding internal and external affairs and providing service to the people. However, none of the super-powers emphatically spoke in terms of a neutral Afghanistan. Some discussions had taken place about future dispensation in Afghanistan, but most leaders were of the view that Afghanistan’s independence and sovereignty should be assured by the international community. Obviously, Pakistan did not enjoy the interlocution and later deputed General Kayani and ISI chief Pasha to have separate discussions with Karzai about Pakistan’s sphere of influence in Afghanistan. Karzai also leaned towards Pakistan with a view to stabilizing his personal position, rather than the position of Afghanistan. But, his relations with the western community are visibly improving. The NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen spoke on the eve of the conference, exuding a high degree of optimism about the war. He wrote that NATO was “finally taking the fight to the Taliban” aimed at the “marginalization of the Taliban as a political and military force .[which] will encourage many who joined the Taliban to quit their ranks and engage in the reconciliation effort.” Starting the transition does not mean that the struggle for Afghanistan’s future as a stable country in a volatile region will be over. Afghanistan will need the continued support of the international community, including NATO. The Afghan population needs to know that we will continue to stand by them as they chart their own course into the future. To underline this commitment, I believe that NATO should develop a long-term cooperation agreement with theAfghangovernment.’Obviously he had the support of Obama administration. Obama intrinsically supports the “neutral” Afghanistan idea.(Who never Come.) Russia is not so emphatic about “post war” role in Afghanistan, but supports the “neutral” thesis. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointedly underlined in his statement at the Kabul conference the importance of recognizing Afghanistan’s future “neutral status”, which would preclude any sort of permanent foreign military presence. To quote Lavrov: ‘The restoration of the neutral status of Afghanistan is designed to become one of the key factors of creating an atmosphere of good-neighborly relations and cooperation in the region. We expect that this idea will be supported by the Afghan people. The presidents of Russia and the US have already come out in favor of it.’ The Chinese position is ambiguous. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi chose to visit the idea of a “neutral” Afghanistan, but somewhat tangentially. He said: The international community must give continued attention to Afghanistan and follow through on the commitments made in London [conference in January] and the previous international conferences on Afghanistan. We should respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty and work together towards the early realization of ‘Afghanistan run by the Afghans’. We want to see a peaceful, stable and independent Afghanistan.’ It appears that China is leading Pakistan in a joint approach to the Afghan imbroglio. India has always supported the “neutral” status of Afghanistan and has recently reiterated, “India is committed to the unity, integrity and independence of Afghanistan underpinned by democracy and cohesive pluralism and free from external interference.” However, Pakistan is not at all interested in any kind of Indian presence in Afghanistan. According to Chris Alexander, Canadian diplomat and former head of UN mission in Kabul wroting in an article in Globe and Mail (Aug 2, 2010), “The Pakistan army under General Kayani is sponsoring a large scale guerrilla war through Afghan proxies-whose strongholds in Balochistan and Waziristan are flourishing. Their mission in Afghanistan is to keep Pashtun nationalism down, India out and Mr. Karzai weak.” Kayani had reportedly offered peace to Karzai in case he agreed to shut down all Indian consulates in Afghanistan. Though rendering support to “neutral” Afghanistan the USA is planning to set up a permanent military base in northern Afghanistan near Mazar-i-Sharif in Amu Darya region over an area of 17 acres. The base is about 35 km from Uzbek border and is likely to be a part of strings of US bases in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan etc Central Asian countries as part of its forward military missions in the region. Russia and China are not strategically happy with such US plans and consider the Mazar-i-Sharif base as an American plan to have a permanent foothold in Afghanistan. All said and done, the Afghan kaleidoscope is still uncertain and Pakistan is still busy exploiting Washington’s vacillating indetermination over what to do with an unreliable ally. Obama should decide or face the wrath of the American people. The people can read history faster than the leaders can do. The same had happened in Cambodia and Vietnam. Now in South Asia Washington cannot afford to dance tango with an unfaithful partner which is conspiring with the puppet Talibans, and is known to have links with puppet al Qaeda. Whose war is the USA fighting in Afghanistan? Its own or Pakistan’s?” …ONE Asian said that. Hey, American’s . [ We have faught you a thousand years. We will never give up and will fight you for another thousand years.]..The American must stop the war in Islamic countries. Its a good time for us army, the time is going on ,after that they last every thing in this World. Yoy can see the USSR result. The us gaine Muslim countries help. The” ISLAMIC NEW WORLD ORDER “is on WAY.You cant stop them. The Real War is comming. GOD hlep Muslim countries.Its enough for them.This is so calld Big countries, Usa, Europ,Uk,israel, Nato & others are becommig very small & poor countries, powerless,they are Nothing doing any think. They are ” Trapped” badly in Afghanistan, IRAQ,& other countries.It is better for them to “GO HOME ” to their countries. They are” KILLING THE TIME,” &” KILLING THE MONEY “, NOTHING MORE…Hey, Mr. President, You are at a big risk of history, its turning point for U .States history. You may be very cear full in these days, because of Afghanistan WARS, Iraq problem, Pakistan case, its going to an examination for you , your countries, your army, your big nation, & Your Forigne Policy. Your countries are involve in 35 years Afghan WARS. You invest 60 trillion Dallor put in Afghan’s Fire, just now its Smook give turbel for your nation, this Smook covered all the World.Just now this thicknees Smooky cloud, could involed all the Nation ‘s in the World, every one are busy in this Holy Wars, From East to West, & from North to South. How can you are remove this Smook from whole World.? In these day’s Mascow is in The Fire & Smook. Its from GREAT GOD for Ussr, Usa, Uk, Nato, Isral, India, Pakistan, & China, ( This countries are in Water, Mascow is in Fire, all other countries are in Economic World War Cirisis.) Its very though thing for you & your country to Remove This Smook from EARTH. Its Imposible in this Century, You Cant do it, Its not so easy, you cant THINK IT.Its shame for us.Its a historical mistake, why we start this war,? The Power full American country and all other countries of the World RUSH, & Attack to Poorest Country of the World Afghanistan. Their is a GOD or not, ? Who Saw the World Activity, one of them is Israel, The other one is usa, next is uk’s, activity,What they are doing in this Palenet . We must try to stop this dirty war in this Modran Age..Its our fault to starat this blody war, daily Thousand’s army, people are Killing.in this war . This Holy war will be going to next Century, ( never ended war.).The American Foreign Policy are Totally Failed, because of this interfair of non governament jewish ..Actually, on the other hands, Jewish involed very badly in American’s Politics, The Six million jewish are control all American’s Governament, from Abraham Lincon, to Bush, Bush father & Obama, Till Next Centuty,. ( 2220 ), ie, 110 years more. At that time the us papulation will be 525 million’s & Jewish are at that time will be 10 million’s, or som more. The Economic World WARs Crisis is also Comming due to JEWISH Lobby in the WORLD. They must be punish & stop. If we failed to stop them, then whole world will be comming to hangher & poornees. in America, their are 10,000 jewish agencies are working. in Pakistan 7,000 jewish agencies, in Iraq 4,500 agencies, in Afghanistan 4,000 agencies, in Europ more then 12,000 agencies, in USSR 5000 Agencies are Workin, & so on. Before 1979 in Iran all companies are in Jewish Lobbies Hands, ( 200,000 Jewish were living in Iran, The Prime Minster of Shah was Bahhai’s , he Ruled 13 years, the Freemassion was, ‘ Evil & Devil ‘ were active in Iran. ) non of them not in Muslim hands. Just now in Arab countries all agencies in their jewish Hand’s, also in Saudi Arab. The JEWISH are control through, Mossad, Fremasion, Christian Zionist, Lion club, Rotary, World Zionist, Israel, World Jewish congrees, World Anarchist, Watch Tawor, and also, Through Ahmedi, Qadiyani, Bahhi’s, Wahhbi’s, Ismaili’s Aga khan’s, Bohrie’s & somany other 786/110,..The ” ECONOMIC WORLD WAR CIRSIS ” is gift of 11/9, for the Whom start the Holy war in ” ISLAMIC COUNTRIES,” . They know that after attak, Whats goin on in Worls ? This 30 years WAR’S are not JOKE. Millions & millions ( Two Million ) mens& woman are Killed, It WERE A DIRTIEST GAME OF THE WORLD, Dont worry The Time Will be Come, When Revange Shall be Start. No Problem. Its not end of World. The American’s Advisor are so POOR, Like BIRZENCKEY, BUSH, ( man of shoes in Iraq. ), Bush father, Tony Biler of British, hero, who become Zero, Israeli’s, Canadian, German’s, ( Why so many Corruption’s Cases in These Governement’s ? ) & Other’s. ? There may be reasons for failure in Afghanistan, but don’t pin it on “a super-simplified version of Afghanistan’s history” distorted by “the past 35 years of seemingly unceasing warfare.”.Iraq, Pelistean, Labanon, & all over the World. They never success by this Playing dirty Game. The WAR is out of control for them. They are Trapped Badly in this Holy WAR’s. ( apossed by Christian Zionist ) ? ………This essay Cancerous Pakistan’s Ambidextrous puppet Taliban & Jihadist Policies: Threat to the subcontinent on June 25, 2010 in the context of Indo-Afghan-Iran subcontinent. More was revealed by David Coleman Headley to the USA authorities and the Indian National Investigation Agency about the roles of the ISI and elements of Pakistan army, in fact, the state of Pakistan, in planning the attack on Mumbai. P. Chidambaram had physically carried the messages to Pakistan and G. K. Pillai, Chidambaram’s Secretary merely repeated what his minister had conveyed personally to his counterpart in Pakistan. Now, the revelations made by WikiLeaks in over 90,000 documents covering the periods of General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani as former ISI chief and the present ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha have confirmed (in about 30,000) documents) about ISI linkages with the Taliban and its active involvement in targeting and eliminating Americans and Indians. Truth does not suit Pakistan. Pakistan risked sabotaging the bilateral talks when the role of the ISI was pointed out by the Indian Home Secretary. Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi brushed aside all diplomatic niceties and insulted the Indian Foreign Minister by raising the ISI issue. There is nothing new in it. Z. A. Bhutto, as the Foreign Minister of Pakistan had yelled against his Indian counterpart and his daughter had also shouted against the Indian foreign minister. The WikiLeaks documents are damaging. Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harboured strong suspicions that the ISI has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants, according to a trove of secret military field reports made public on Sunday. The documents, made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders. Taken together, the reports indicate that American soldiers on the ground are inundated with accounts of a network of Pakistani assets and collaborators that runs from the Pakistani tribal belt along the Afghan border, through southern Afghanistan, and all the way to the capital, Kabul. While current and former American officials could not corroborate individual reports, they said that the portrait of the spy agency’s collaboration with the Afghan insurgency was broadly consistent with other classified intelligence. Some of the reports describe Pakistani intelligence working alongside al-Qaida to plan attacks. Experts cautioned that although Pakistan’s militant groups and al-Qaida work together, it may be difficult to prove such connection. Hillary Clinton recently said that some junior ISI officers are aware of location of the al Qaeda leaders.The records also contain first hand accounts of American anger at Pakistan’s unwillingness to confront insurgents who launched attacks near Pakistani border posts, moved openly by the truckload across the frontier, and retreated to Pakistani territory for safety. The behind-the-scenes frustrations of soldiers on the ground and glimpses of what appear to be Pakistani skullduggery contrast sharply with the frequently rosy public pronouncements of Pakistan as an ally by American officials, looking to sustain a drone campaign over parts of Pakistani territory to strike at Qaida havens. Administration officials also want to keep nuclear-armed Pakistan on their side to safeguard NATO supplies flowing on routes that cross Pakistan to Afghanistan. The reports suggest, however, that the Pakistani military has acted as both ally and enemy, as its spy agency runs what American officials have long suspected is a double game — appeasing certain American demands for cooperation while angling to exert influence in Afghanistan through many of the same insurgent networks that the Americans are fighting to eliminate. Behind the scenes, both Bush and Obama administration officials as well as top American commanders have confronted top Pakistani military officers with accusations of ISI complicity in attacks in Afghanistan, and even presented top Pakistani officials with lists of ISI and military operatives believed to be working with militants. Several Congressional officials said that despite repeated requests over the years for information about Pakistani support for militant groups, they usually receive vague and inconclusive briefings from the Pentagon and CIA. Nonetheless, senior lawmakers say they have no doubt that Pakistan is aiding insurgent groups. “The burden of proof is on the government of Pakistan and the ISI to show they don’t have ongoing contacts,” said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee who visited Pakistan this month and said he and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman, confronted Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, yet again over the allegations. Such accusations are usually met with angry denials, particularly by the Pakistani military, which insists that the ISI severed its remaining ties to the Talibans years ago. An ISI spokesman in Islamabad said that the agency would have no comment until it saw the documents. Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, said, “The documents circulated by WikiLeaks do not reflect the current on-ground realities.” The man, the United States has depended on for cooperation in fighting the militants and who holds most power in Pakistan, the head of the army, Gen Parvez Ashfaq Kayani, ran the ISI from 2004 to 2007, a period from which many of the reports are drawn. How can Kayani be absolved of the accusations? American officials have described Pakistan’s spy service as a rigidly hierarchical organization that has little tolerance for “rogue” activity. But Pakistani military officials give the spy service’s “S Wing”, which runs external operations against the Afghan government and India, broad autonomy, a buffer that allows top military officials deniability..American officials have rarely uncovered definitive evidence of direct ISI involvement in a major attack. But in July 2008, the CIA’s deputy director, Stephen R Kappes, confronted Pakistani officials with evidence that the ISI helped plan the deadly suicide bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul. From the current trove, one report shows that Polish intelligence warned of a complex attack against the Indian Embassy a week before that bombing, though the attackers and their methods differed. The ISI was not named in the report warning of the attack. Another, dated August 2008, identifies a colonel in the ISI plotting with a Taliban official to assassinate President Hamid Karzai. The report says there was no information about how or when this would be carried out. The account could not be verified. Lt Gen Hamid Gul ran the ISI from 1987 to 1989, a time when Pakistani spies and the CIA joined forces to run guns and money to Afghan militias who were battling Soviet troops in Afghanistan. After the fighting stopped, he maintained his contacts with the former Mujahedeen, who would eventually transform themselves into the Taliban. And more than two decades later, it appears that General Gul is still at work. The documents indicate that he has worked tirelessly to reactivate his old networks, employing familiar allies like Jaluluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose networks of thousands of fighters are responsible for waves of violence in Afghanistan. For example, one intelligence report describes him meeting with a group of militants in Wana, the capital of South Waziristan, in January 2009. There, he met with three senior Afghan insurgent commanders and three “older” Arab men, presumably representatives of al-Qaida, who the report suggests were important “because they had a large security contingent with them.” The gathering was designed to hatch a plan to avenge the death of “Zamarai,” the nom de guerre of Osama al-Kini, who had been killed days earlier by a CIA drone attack. Mr Kini had directed Qaida operations in Pakistan and had spearheaded some of the group’s most devastating attacks. The plot hatched in Wana that day, according to the report, involved driving a dark blue Mazda truck rigged with explosives from South Waziristan to Afghanistan’s Paktika Province, a route well known to be used by the insurgents to move weapons, suicide bombers and fighters from Pakistan. In a show of strength, the Taliban leaders approved a plan to send 50 Arab and 50 Waziri fighters to Ghazni Province in Afghanistan, the report said. General Gul urged the Taliban commanders to focus their operations inside Afghanistan in exchange for Pakistan turning “a blind eye” to their presence in Pakistan’s tribal areas. It was unclear whether the attack was ever executed. The United States has pushed the United Nations to put General Gul on a list of international terrorists, and top American officials said they believed he was an important link between active-duty Pakistani officers and militant groups. Senior Pakistani officials consistently deny that General Gul still works at the ISI’s behest, though several years ago, after mounting American complaints, Pakistan’s president at the time, Pervez Musharraf, was forced publicly to acknowledge the possibility that former ISI officials were assisting the Afghan insurgency. Despite his denials, General Gul keeps close ties to his former employers. The reports also chronicle efforts by ISI officers to run the networks of suicide bombers that emerged as a sudden, terrible force in Afghanistan in 2006. The detailed reports indicate that American officials had a relatively clear understanding of how the suicide networks presumably functioned, even if some of the threats did not materialize. It is impossible to know why the attacks never came off — either they were thwarted, the attackers shifted targets, or the reports were deliberately planted as Taliban disinformation. one report, from Dec 18, 2006, describes a cyclical process to develop the suicide bombers. First, the suicide attacker is recruited and trained in Pakistan.” The Target Killings, and Suicide Bombings are going to Hell .” Then, reconnaissance and operational planning gets underway, including scouting to find a place for “hosting” the suicide bomber near the target before carrying out the attack. The network, it says, receives help from the Afghan police and the Ministry of Interior. Several of the reports describe current and former ISI operatives, including General Gul, visiting madrasas near the city of Peshawar, a gateway to the tribal areas, to recruit new fodder for suicide bombings. One report, labeled a “real threat warning” because of its detail and the reliability of its source, described how commanders of Mr. Hekmatyar’s insurgent group, Hezb-i-Islami, ordered the delivery of a suicide bomber from the Hashimiye madrasa, run by Afghans. The boy was to be used in an attack on American or NATO vehicles in Kabul during the Muslim Festival of Sacrifices that opened Dec. 31, 2006. According to the report, the boy was taken to the Afghan city of Jalalabad to buy a car for the bombing, and was later brought to Kabul. It was unclear whether the attack took place. The documents indicate that these types of activities continued throughout last year. From July to October 2009, nine threat reports detailed movements by suicide bombers from Pakistan into populated areas of Afghanistan, including Kandahar, Kunduz , Kabul., and Quetta. Some of the bombers were sent to disrupt Afghanistan’s presidential elections, held last August. In other instances, American intelligence learned that the Haqqani, network sent bombers at the ISI’s behest to strike Indian officials, development workers and engineers in Afghanistan. Other plots were aimed at the Afghan government… But the reports also charge that the ISI directly helped organize Taliban offensives at key junctures of the war. On June 19, 2006, ISI operatives allegedly met with the Taliban leaders in Quetta, the city in southern Pakistan where American and other Western officials have long believed top Taliban leaders have been given refuge by the Pakistani authorities. At the meeting, according to the report, they pressed the Taliban to mount attacks on Maruf, a district of Kandahar that lies along the Pakistani borderHI, American’s, Canadian’s, Britisher’s, Israeli’s, & Nato . [ We have faught you a thousand years. We will never give up and will fight you for another thousand years! .] MOJAHID…ONE day Last American Army & other’s Army, Shall Leave Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Iraq. The USA, UK, & NATO are totally failed in their objectives in Afghanistan. They need two million army in Afghanistan to control them. Its not puppet Taliban & Al-qaeda, its Afghani’s & Afghanistan case, who can fight thousand years easly. Its better for them to leave Afghanistan, and go to Balochistan for American army. The Quetta & Balochistan is fighting place for Indian, American’s, Al-Qaeida,Ussr,& Pakistan Army in comming day’s.The Quetta is becoming fighting city in the World, as Kabul, Kandahar, Baghdad, Beriut, Bosni, etc. Now a days Quetta is CIA Headquater, for Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, Central Asia, China, Ussr, and so many other Countries The Balochistan is Last fighting place in the World, for these Big Powers. The American are foolish nation, they have no MIND, they are Mad. They are Sadeast Countries of the World. What can they get from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, & Pakistan. ? The Afghanista is GRAVEYARD’s for American’s Nato,( Ali BaBa & Forty Theive’s ) Birtisher’s, Canadian Army,& German Army etc. The World Zionist, World Anarchist, World Jewish Cngrees, Mossad, Fbi, Cia, Pentagone, Mi5, Mi6, Raw, Freemassion, & so many other Agencies are Failed very Badly in Afghanistan,Iraq,Pelistean, Labnan, & all over the World. They never sucssec by this Playing dirty Game. The WAR is out of countrool for them. They are Trap Badly in this WAR. They want controol whole World, But they cant controol” 1″ ONE PERCENT OF THE WORLD, They are ” Out OF Date.” Like USSR in 90’s . The Dallor Game’s is over, Dallor is ” DEMONETIES “in the World. Why one dallor note have a single Devil Eyes of Freemasion’s, Slogans. ? The Seven Flet or Six Flet are also uselees. You cant Throw ATOMIC BOMB on Kabul, Islamabad, Tehran, Baghdad, Macca, Yemen,or other Countries.YES you can use it on Mascow, Dehly, or Bejung, or Tel Aviv only. …..SinSince 2001, RAND Corporation political sciens has been observing the reinvigorated insurgency in Afghanistan and weighing the potency of its threat to the country’s future and American interests in the region. There is no American interests in the region now a day’s. The roots of the re-emergence in the expected areas: the deterioration of security after the ousting of the Puppet Al-Qaeda and Taliban regime in 2002, the U.S.’s focus on Iraq as its foreign policy priority and Pakistan’s role as a haven for insurgents. The revisits Afghan history, specifically the invasions by the British in the mid- and late-19th century and the Russians in the late-20th to rue how little the U.S. has learned from these two previous wars. The sheds light on why Pakistan—a consistent supporter of the Taliban—continues to be a key player in the region’s future. It’s makes important arguments for the inclusion of local leaders, particularly in rural regions, but his diligent panorama of the situation fails to consider whether the war in Afghanistan is already lostce. After 2001 American policy in Afghanistan , its better than ever…The American’s are bigger terrorist then Pakistani Taliban, terrorism, and the United States, this is the place to start, ether the war in Afghanistan is already lost. A deeply researched, clearly written, and well-analyzed account of the failures of American policies in Afghanistan,In the Graveyard of Empires lays out a plan to avoid a potential quagmire. This is the time, we will be mandatory reading for policymakers from Washington to Kabul but it will also help to inform Americans who want to understand what is likely to be the greatest foreign policy challenge of the Obama administrationthe answer to the million-dollar question….until nobody actually sought an empirical answer. Nobody crunched the numbers. A useful and generally lively account of what can go wrong when outsiders venture onto the Afghan landscape. Those ventures have generally not turned out well…This is ominous…..The war goes on until 2025.I’m no Islam scholar and no military strategist. I’m pretty good at divining common sense and practicality as opposed to jingoism and unrealistic goals.So that’s why I’d say nine years this October is much too long to wage war in Afghanistan, and 1,400 American’s and more then 500 from Nato & other countries deaths there are unacceptable.I’d go home and let all the bad guys sort it out among themselves. I’d tell the Afghans it’s their country and their society. Just don’t harbor any people who will strike at America or we’ll be back to scour your earth from the skies, with most of the world’s blessings.I’m not buying that we’re there to make sure children can go to school and women aren’t abused. Those are nice goals, but not realistic in that country and culture.We can
  5. March 24, 2013 4:26 pm

    She always looks like she’s having fun.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: