Remarks at the International Conference on Afghanistan Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
London, DC, United Kingdom
January 28, 2010
QUESTION: I’d like to ask about the general tenor of the conference seems to be changing the pace of what’s been going on in Afghanistan, and to some extent, looking towards the time when troops can leave. A time scale has been mentioned this morning by President Karzai of around 15 years. And I wondered whether you thought that was a practical time limit to start pulling troops out, and also to have the Taliban lay down their arms in that – within that sort of time period?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, and I don’t think that’s what President Karzai meant. First of all, we have increased the numbers of our military forces. There will be more to come. As you know, the United States has added 30,000. Other international partners have added 9,000. We have upped the tempo of our military engagement and we’re beginning to see some evidence of reversing the momentum of the Taliban. That is all to the good.
It is absolutely necessary in order to provide the conditions for stability and security, but it is not sufficient to provide the political environment in which a lasting peace could be negotiated. So therefore, as you heard today, we will be pursuing the military action, going very aggressively against the Taliban, those who are trying to kill our soldiers and civilians and wreak havoc in Afghanistan, and at the same time, creating an opportunity for Taliban who choose to leave the battlefield, renounce violence, renounce al-Qaida, agree to abide by the laws and constitution of Afghanistan to reenter society.
It is our working assumption that we can make gains on both of these tracks over the next few years and that we can begin to transition security to the Afghan security forces on a timetable that is conditions-based, but which begins to have the Afghan security forces assume greater and greater responsibility, province by province, beginning this year. July of 2011 will mark a point of transition for American troops as we take stock of where we have come with our security efforts. And we expect that there will be a portion of the country that will be under Afghan control, and we will move forward to transition out our forces as they are replaced by trained and qualified Afghan forces.
I think what President Karzai was referring to, and I’ve spoken to him about this personally on several occasions, is that our military presence may continue as it does in many countries, providing training, logistics, intelligence. But our combat role will diminish and transition out. That’s as it should be. There was a very significant event a few weeks ago with the multiply timed suicide attacks in Kabul. That was handled well by the Afghans themselves. There were no international troops involved. And the assessment by our commanders – American and NATO ISAF commanders – is that the Afghan forces performed commendably.
We have seen an increase in the recruitment of the young men joining the Afghan security forces in the last two months. We’ve seen an improvement in retention. We’ve increased the pay, something that was quite noticeably lacking since the Taliban paid more than the Afghan security forces or police paid.
So I mention all of that to create the context that we see this as an evolving process where we are creating the conditions for Afghanistan to assume responsibility for its own security, which will then permit the transfer out of international combat forces. Having said that, there will likely be continuing military aid, assistance, and advice from international partners beyond the combat mission.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, I’d like to ask a little bit about this reintegration and reconciliation process. As you doubtless know, the Afghan Government has invited the Taliban to take part in the loya jirga that that they’re planning to have this year. I’d like to ask, does the U.S. specifically support this invitation? And do you think that the invitation could or should include top Taliban leadership such as Mullah Omar as long as they, or if they, renounce ties to al-Qaida? Does the U.S. have any plans to contribute funds, beyond the military funds that you’ve mentioned, to the reintegration fund that the Japanese are helping to establish? And more broadly, do you feel that this reconciliation process that we’re talking about today represents the first point in a real roadmap toward ending the conflict in Afghanistan? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andy, I think that the starting premise is you don’t make peace with your friends. You have to be willing to engage with your enemies if you expect to create a situation that ends an insurgency or so marginalizes the remaining insurgents that it doesn’t pose a threat to the stability and security of the people.
When President Karzai announced that he would be holding a jirga, which is a traditional Afghan mechanism for trying to reconcile competing views and reach decisions to take, it was natural for him to say that if we’re going to have a peace jirga, people who are not already in agreement with you might actually come.
Now, we have a very clear understanding of what we expect from this process. We expect that a lot of the foot soldiers on the battlefield will be leaving the Taliban because many of them have wanted to leave, many of them are tired of fighting. We believe the tide is beginning to turn against them, and we need incentives in order to both protect them and provide alternatives to them to replace the payment they received as Taliban fighters. This is similar to what the American military did in Iraq. As it became clear that a number of Iraqis were tired of the brutality and barbarism of al-Qaida, as they began to see the potential alternatives available to them in the political system, they began to talk with our military personnel about changing allegiance and becoming part of the forces fighting against the terrorists.
So we have some experience in this now of recent vintage. Some of the same people, including a British general who is active in this area in Iraq, are advising General McChrystal. We’ve already seen some examples. In fact, we saw – there’s an article in one of the American papers today talking about a whole tribe, a whole tribe of Pashtuns, about 400,000 members, who want to fight the Taliban. But you’ve got to realize the circumstances. There was a tribe in a village in Pakistan who decided to fight the Taliban and they were targeted with these brutal suicide bombings, killing more than a hundred people at a volleyball match.
So in order to make good on the offer of an alternative that can create the conditions for peace, you have to be prepared to help fund it and provide protection for people. And that’s part of the planning.
We do not have any plans to add money to the reintegration fund because, as I said, we have a significant amount of money that’s being used for the same purposes coming through our American military. And this is an international effort, and a number of international partners have signed up and made commitments to the reintegration fund. But they will be working in the same arena with the same purpose.
read more:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/136159.htmphotos: (AP/Lefteris Pitarakis) (AP Photo/Alastair Grant ) REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth