Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Clinton speaks on Af-Pak strategy"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 12:56 PM
Original message
"Clinton speaks on Af-Pak strategy"
Clinton speaks on Af-Pak strategy
By MATT NEGRIN | 12/01/09 11:58 AM

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that the Obama administration's approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan will require new contributions from the Pakistani government to stabilize the region.

“We have made a commitment to provide more assistance to Pakistan that is going to be accountable and transparent, but which we hope sends a message to the people of Pakistan that there is a better future, and which holds the government of Pakistan to a different standard than the one that it has met in the past, to try to provide for the energy needs, the education needs, the healthcare needs, economic development needs of that country,” Clinton said in a speech to the group Business Executives for National Security, which presented her with an award.

Clinton said the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan is “directly connected” to the United States’s national security, adding that with a transnational foe like terrorism a “strictly military response can only get us so far.”

“We therefore need a more comprehensive strategy that confronts the extremists themselves as well as the political, economic, and social forces that help to fuel their extremism,” she said.

She also touted the civilian aspect of the administration’s new strategy, saying: “And although I will not go into the specifics of what the president will say tomorrow, let me just mention an area that is particularly applicable to those of you who are part of BENS, namely the civilian component of our mission. Our goals in Afghanistan include providing the government with the support that it needs to take full responsibility for its own country. That makes civilian efforts as vital as military operations and of longer duration. We have begun to elevate diplomacy and development alongside defense in our national security strategy, and we are certainly engaged in doing so in Afghanistan.”

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1209/hrcs_pakistan_preview_3fa9f4b6-bd53-4078-894b-7e581bda49e5.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. "will require new contributions from the Pakistani government"
Oh, that should work out dandy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Firstzar Donating Member (72 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. I'm certain they'll cooperate fully!
With whom, well that's another story!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oh goodie
Not just one or two nation building activities, but three!!

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And meanwhile, at home, in the US, .......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. with three you get eggroll
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I was hoping for the side of egg fu yung on a stick...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. Of course the two are linked...
...Pakistan is the reason the President is escalating in Afghanistan. They are terrified that Pakistani nuclear weapons will come under control of radical Islamic forces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Who wouldn't be terrified of that? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC