Clinton: Afghanistan Aid Tied to Reform

Secretary of State Says Pres. Karzai and His Government Ministries Must Be Accountable

(AP)  The United States is limiting its goals in Afghanistan and demanding better accountability from that country's underperforming leader, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday, and she tied additional U.S. civilian help to results from Kabul.

Clinton, an influential voice in deliberations about whether to add large numbers of U.S. troops to an unpopular eight-year war, said Afghan President Hamid Karzai can do more to reduce corruption and go after those who may have looted U.S. aid in the past.

"I have made it clear that we're not going to be providing any civilian aid to Afghanistan unless we have a certification that if it goes into the Afghan government in any form, that we're going to have ministries that we can hold accountable," Clinton said.

Special Report: Afghanistan

The Obama administration wants a tribunal to prosecute major corruption crimes and a new anti-corruption commission, she said in an interview on ABC television.

"There does have to be actions by the government of Afghanistan against those who have taken advantage of the money that has poured into Afghanistan in the last eight years so that we can better track it and we can have actions taken that demonstrate there's no impunity for those who are corrupt," she said.

President Barack Obama is weighing ways to link the coming troops and money decision to better government performance in Afghanistan, but U.S. leverage is limited by the shifting objectives in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion and the history of sloppy accountability on both sides.

"We're going to expect more from the Afghan government going forward and we've got some very specific asks that we will be making," Clinton said in another interview on NBC television. Both interviews were done from Asia, where Clinton is traveling with Obama.

Clinton did not spell out exactly what those "asks," or demands, would be, beyond the tribunal and commission she mentioned on ABC. Congress has already required the administration to measure the performance of the Afghan government on several fronts, and the coming announcement is expected to expand on that effort and include more specific goals for the training and performance of Afghan armed forces.

Obama is expected to announce some troop increases along with clearer limitations on U.S. goals for the war after he returns from Asia late this week. The announcement is expected either just before or just after the Thanksgiving holiday on Nov. 26. The post-holiday timing appears more likely, despite continued criticism from the political right that Obama is taking too long to announce his next move.

The time is past, Clinton said, when U.S. officials would "talk about how we were going to help the Afghans build a modern democracy and build a more functioning state and do all these wonderful things."

She added, "That could happen, but our primary focus is on the security of the United States of America — how do we protect and defend against future attacks."

Presidential adviser David Axelrod made a similar point Sunday. "We have to keep focused on what our purpose was in the first place," he said on CNN. "Our purpose was to disrupt and dismantle and destroy al Qaeda. That remains our purpose, but obviously we cannot make an open-ended commitment."

Axelrod dismissed Republicans' criticism that as a political adviser he should not have sat in secret meetings of the president's war council over the past several weeks. Axelrod said he did not speak during those sessions and was there to better understand the emerging strategy so he can reflect it accurately to the press and others.

Obama's top war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has laid out military options for employing between about 10,000 and 40,000 additional U.S. troops next year, and prefers the high end, military officials have said. Obama rejected four troop options presented at a war council session Wednesday, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the focus is now on choosing the best elements from those plans.

Military officials have said the most likely outcome is a middle path that would add some 20,000 to 35,000 troops.

Gates also said that cost estimates had been prepared for each option. He gave no details, but on Sunday Democrat Sen. Kent Conrad appeared to refer to those calculations.

"Security is not cheap and the first judgment has to be, what assures the security of the nation?" Conrad said in expressing Democratic doubts about a troop build up on CNN. "But in the case of Afghanistan, the cost is $40 billion to $50 billion a year if we're going to put in an additional 35,000 to 40,000 troops."

The U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan doubts the wisdom of sending more forces, Conrad noted.

Obama will get more support from Republicans than Democrats for any troop increase.

Republican leader Sen. Mitch McConnell said Sunday that support is likely to hold even if Obama approves slightly fewer forces than McChrystal wants, but he said Republicans are "perplexed about the length of time it's taking to make this decision."

"I think the president, as difficult as this decision is, needs to make it, needs to follow the advice of his generals," McConnell said on Fox television. "And if he does, he'll have overwhelming support among Republican senators."

[mljohns00]

Reading between the lines, Hillary's speech seems a prelude to Obama's announcement that we are leaving soon. Hurray. No more wasted lives, both foreign and Afghani, please.

[Tyler51773]

Bring the troops home! Just chant it. :: Iraq is the best case scenario of a war where we commit ourselves for up to 10 years. Since, they are using dowsing rods to sniff out bombs, that tells me they will quickly descend into barbaric patterns when we leave. Afghanistan is even more backwards of a people. If you really want 'reform' a country, you have to conquer it and stay for a few generations and educate the young, and treat the old like s**t till they die in some corner.. I don't like the sound of that. Lets just become self sufficient some how, and leave them alone to develop. It may take a hundred or thousand years but let them.

[incog-nito]

We are staying in those countries, because we went there. And once we got in we cannot leave without some kind of "victory", because otherwise that would be a "defeat" or "cut and run". And America hates to lose. Hence Vietnam.

Of course, now that we have the "War on Terror" we won't have to worry about winning or losing, because the war can go on forever. Unless, of course, "Terror" decides to declare an unconditional surrender.

[jgg000015]

there is no government in afghaistan. The whole freaken country is run by tribal lords. Karzai is known as "the mayor of kabul" because that is the extent of his power.

[srghani]

The only viable reform is get out of there ASAP with 10% investment of current war cost for 5 years for so called tune ups or reforms/ Seems like we are drilling holes on the ground just to feel our presence felt!

No diplomacy may justify the loss of our troops with so little change on the ground!!!

[veteran71]

If Shrillary had won the election and become POTUS, she'd have ordered 500K troops to Afghanistan and taken over Darth's spot as Private War Contractor in Chief. She'd be stashing $Billions$ in Dubai and the Caimans and have Rowdy as her own personal love monkey.
(Now you know why Rowdy was so upset when Shrillary got her wide-load azz kicked in the primaries)......

[justdatrooth]

"Aid tied to reform" sounds a lot like "sanctions". Remember how well Mr and Mrs Clinton's "sanctions worked in Iraq? A million people starved to death. Good thinking, Mrs Clinton!!!