Hillary Clinton warns of 'huge consequences' in Afghan US troop withdrawal

[bluewater]

Source: BBC News

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned of "huge consequences" of President Joe Biden's decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan.
...
Mr Biden wants to complete the withdrawal by the 20th anniversary of the attacks later this year.
At least 2,500 US troops are currently deployed as part of the 9,600-strong Nato Afghan mission.
The president said the US pull-out was justified as American forces had ensured that the country could no longer be a base for foreign jihadists to plot against the West.

Asked about the president's decision by CNN's Fareed Zakaria on Sunday, Mrs Clinton said, "Our government has to focus on two huge consequences", notably the resumption of activities by extremist groups and a subsequent outpouring of refugees from Afghanistan.

She said the potential collapse of the Afghan government and a possible takeover by the Taliban could result in a new civil war.

Mrs Clinton said it was also important to protect the "many thousands of Afghans" who had worked with the US and Nato during the conflict, and said a large visa programme should be set up to provide for any refugees.

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56966473

---

I support President Biden's decision. I firmly believe he has weighed the risks and has chosen his course of action based on the latest available intelligence.

[JohnSJ]

1. Hey BBC, it is President Biden!!!

[TimeToGo]

26. Mr is fine

That was discussed way back at the formation. It isn't disrespectful. I mean, I guess it could be depending, but generally not.

In fact, Mr. President is the correct direct address. Beating out His Excellency. So, that was a good move.

[JohnSJ]

29. They didn't address him as Mr. President, they addressed him as Mr Biden

[TimeToGo]

37. Yes

Mr. President is for direct address -- but Mr. X (or Ms. X) is fine for reference. BTW, so is just using the last name on subsequent references. NY Times usually uses Mr. or Ms. but most newspapers don't do that anymore.

Imagine an article that had to use the title in every mention.

This is not a Joe Biden thing -- it is ever thus.

[niyad]

52. Talk to the media who use "president trump", and "Joe".

[TimeToGo]

56. Well yea

That's a different thing altogether -- that's not style guide that's bias.

The good news is that it doesn't seem to be working at all.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

45. It's a function of the BBC Style Manual.

For some odd reason, I don't have a copy on my desk here at home, but I'm sure they can point you to one.

The Associated Press has its style manual. All the wire services do things the way they have always done things.

Because that they way we do things.

HTH.

[brooklynite]

60. The gave his title in the first sentence. "Mr" after that is a British editorial style"

The UK prime minister was campaigning in Barry, Vale of Glamorgan, as parties began the last week of the Welsh Parliament election campaign.

Mr Johnson said voters wanted to see politicians working together to beat the pandemic.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-56970038

[obamanut2012]

79. That is totally correct protocol

[karynnj]

30. Likely style book -- the first mention has title of President Joe Biden, later they say Mr. Biden

I think this is pretty typical.

[TimeToGo]

38. Didn't see your response before I wrote my follow up

Yes

[karynnj]

48. Your response was far better and much more complete.

[Marthe48]

57. U.S. press decided during Pres. Obama's first term that

instead of addressing the President as President each time the leader was named that they would call him President the first reference and Mr. in subsequent references.

I thought it was really bad timing. I think it was very near the beginning of President Obama's first term.

[Polybius]

2. I like Hillary on every issue except for war

She has never opposed any kind of war, whether big (Iraq) or small (Libyan overthrow of Kaddafi). I still love her though because she's so good on everything else.

[AllTooEasy]

40. Biden and Clinton are correct

Life in Afghanistan (especially for women) with get far worse, their gov't will collapse within 5 years, that country will become a greater epicenter of terrorism, and it's time for the US troops to get the F out!

Just because two arguments are different, doesn't mean they are exclusive.

Praise to them both

[McKim]

66. I Agree and Know Others......

I agree and sadly I know several people in the Peace Movement who could not vote for her. She lost votes for this!!!!! I voted for her even though I lost my brother in law in Vietnam for a lie.
Biden has the right idea. There ARE consequences always, no matter what is done. At least we will not be hurting our own people and wasting money needed here for the New Deal.

[Ritabert]

3. Aren't you retired Hillary?

We cannot afford to be world policeman particularly in an area of the world that bankrupted the USSR which was only there for TEN years not TWENTY.

[niyad]

24. Did you read the article?

[jimfields33]

4. She's probably right, but it's been almost 20 years

Let’s wait and see what happens. I don’t believe president Biden believes it will be kumbuya but i do think it’s time for Afghanistan to take control of their own destiny.

[RockRaven]

5. Yeah, there are probably huge consequences to leaving, but what about the huge consequences

of going there, being there, staying there? Why do people accept the framing of the issue which only examines one side of the ledger?

[PatSeg]

9. Yes, I think that no matter

when we leave Afghanistan, it will have serious consequences, the sort of consequences that are rarely considered when we send troops into another country. It is usually much easier to get in than it is to get out. Knowing that our departure will have negative repercussions, we still have to make a decision, if not now, when? 20 years is much too long. Another 3 or 4 will not make things any better. We've paid far too much for GW Bush's military mistakes. As John Kerry said many years ago, this should have been more of an intelligence and special ops situation. He got a lot of flack for it at the time, but clearly he was right.

Hillary Clinton was probably right, but still I think the best option is to pull the troops out. No one has come up with anything better.

[Autumn]

6. I think Joe's got this under control.

[maxsolomon]

32. He is ceding the country back to the Taliban.

That is nearly inevitable given that Pakistan has bankrolled them all along.

The question is, how medieval will they be towards women, culture, shiites, and non-Pashtun ethnicities? Joe doesn't have that under control. No one does.

What I do hope he has under control is
1. a plan for accepting 10s of 1,000s of refugees, and
2. essentially a military quarantine to stop non-state actors (al qaeda, islamic state) from entering or leaving.

And that's what HRC said.

[Autumn]

39. Joe's got this. He knows what he's doing. nt

[LiberalArkie]

43. Russia needs to have a go at Afghanistan for 20 years or so.

[Autumn]

55. Yep. Their 9 year guerrilla war contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

20 years ought to do Putin in this time.

[Baked Potato]

7. These occupations eventually have to end.

I also support President Biden here. I agree with Hilary Clinton that we need to protect the Afghans who supported American missions. It’s probably the most important task as we may need their help again. And, others around the world too.

The chaos that may come there is a grim reminder to the world how fast sovereign borders will be breached when international terrorists come to roost inside their countries.

[Daydream Writer]

8. The headline is extremely misleading.

Read the article. What she actually says is that there are consequences for leaving OR staying, and that we should have a plan to prevent the very real, potential "huge consequences" of leaving.

[PatSeg]

10. Yes, so many headlines are misleading

Rather annoying.

[elleng]

16. Sounds like it.

'Asked about the president's decision by CNN's Fareed Zakaria on Sunday, Mrs Clinton said, "Our government has to focus on two huge consequences", notably the resumption of activities by extremist groups and a subsequent outpouring of refugees from Afghanistan.'

[niyad]

23. Exactly.

[IronLionZion]

27. Correct. She understands the issue and isn't disagreeing with Biden nt

[Paladin]

11. Biden's correct. We need to get the hell out. (nt)

[bluestarone]

12. Hillarys 100% correct, i feel

BUT after 20 PLUS years of training the Afghan troops hasn't done it NOTHING will. I don't have the answer BUT, do we want to be there forever?

[Akoto]

13. 20th anniversary. Man.

It's crazy for me to think that I was 16 years old when the attacks happened. I remember watching it on TV like it was yesterday, as I do the coverage of 9/11. Strange time to be a young person.

I'm 36 as of this year, been politically involved since around that time, actually. I agree that it's time to cut the Afghan people free and let them chart their own course again. It's not sustainable for us to stay there forever, among so many other reasons. Glad that she did cover having a large scale visa programme ready for any natives who've helped us. Were I them, I'd want to get out, too.

[jalan48]

14. Looks like the MIC will need to find another war to waste the taxpayer's money on.

[kairos12]

15. All politicians, whether Left or Right, who recommend staying, need to

send their children and grandchildren to Afghanistan.

Doubtful they would sign up for that.

No. They would never sign up for that.

Signed Old Infantry Officer.

[niyad]

53. Please read the article.

[msfiddlestix]

17. Sort of wished Hillary stayed out of this, all things considered.

what is she planning on doing? run against Biden in 2024 or Harris?

[Steelrolled]

18. I think President Biden has accepted the consequences,

which I agree will probably be bad, but there is no acceptable alternative. We cannot fix Afghanistan, we knew that for 10 years, and one of Obama's failings was not standing up to the military.

[roamer65]

19. Both are right.

We need to get out, but the result will be the same as this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan

[OneCrazyDiamond]

20. I got 3 takes.

1 for the BBC:
Hey it is President Biden, or Mr. President, but not Mr. Biden.....Show some respect.

2 Mr. Zakaria Please. Please use your platform to show what the hatred from the right would have gotten us, instead of trying to pit our leaders against each other.....It will only enable hatred.

3 I am so happy President Biden is in charge.

[rpannier]

72. You must not follow British press much

PM Johnson they use Mr Johnson
Putin is Mr Putin
Pres Moon is Mr Moon
PM Abe was Mr Abe

[OneCrazyDiamond]

78. Nah. I actually wonder why this place does so much.

It is a site for the Democratic Party, a US political party.

[niyad]

21. Hey, bbc, it is Secretary Clinton, and President Biden.

[markpkessinger]

47. This is a non-issue . . .

. . . It has long been perfectly acceptable form to refer to political leaders as Mr., Mrs. or Ms. So-and-so; it is not necessary to refer to them by their formal titles all the time.

[niyad]

49. It is perhaps a non-issue to you. However, there are those who are aware of the not-so-subtle

usages, or non-usages, of titles or honorifics.

[markpkessinger]

51. It's a non-US media outlet . . .

. . . and is under no obligation to recognize U.S. titles in any case. But it has long been the practice of outlets like the NY Times to use a politician's title in the first reference in an article, and to use Mr., Mrs. or Ms. in subsequent references. They do this to Republicans and Democrats alike. (And there were Republicans who complained when they did it with Trump.)

[niyad]

54. You can see it however you like, as can others.

[rpannier]

73. I'm going to guess you must not follow the British press much as

President Moon is Mr Moon
They use Mr for Biden, Trump (when he was president), Abe (when he was PM)
Or are you suggesting that all publications around the world be required to use what is used in the US?
You might wish to stay away from east Asian news organizations (that publish in English), as many use Mr as well

[TheProle]

70. Yes.

The article is consistent with the AP Style Guide.

[NYC Liberal]

71. They use their titles on first reference and then Mr/Mrs/Ms on second reference.

[Voltaire2]

75. BBC doesn't do that.

In general the brits do not have the same subservient submissive fawning over political leaders that we seem to think is normal.

[LogicFirst]

22. Just go away, Hillary.

[niyad]

50. Why? She has every right to speak, to be interviewed, to give her informed opinions. Please show

me where you have said that about any other Democratic former office holder.

[LanternWaste]

63. Cool bumper sticker, bruh.

Got anything substantive and sourced?

Or just more slogans?

[obamanut2012]

80. She isn't the one that needs to go away

Why does she threaten you so much?

[NurseJackie]

25. Her warnings are not without merit.

No doubt, this story will draw out all the assorted Sarandons and other Hillary-haters on the Internet and Twitter and Facebook.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

28. Staying longer just delays the inevitable.

Afghanistan will be ruled by Taliban, or it will defeat the Taliban. The civil war is just waiting for us to clear the field.

I hope we miss the stated target date. Certain dates shouldn't be muddied (muddled?) with multiple meanings: Jun 6, Dec 7, Sep 11, Mar 17, for example. (just kidding about Mar 17).

[TygrBright]

31. Smart. She makes a wonderful stalking horse... GOP goons cannot resist her.

Which basically puts them in the position of supporting Biden.

Someone is a master strategist, indeed.

amusedly,
Bright

[marieo1]

33. Two of our greatest leaders

I totally trust Hilary's opinion. She was the greatest Secretary of State...........I also trust President Joe Biden's opinion. How else will we ever know if Afghanistan will ever be able to stand up to and defend itself against the Taliban and will fight to keep their people and country safe. My guess, it won't take too long to see if Afghanistan will be able to protect their country. Sooner or later we had to find out!!

[karynnj]

35. I think there were greater Secretaries of State - including Thomas Jefferson

There was also George Marshall, whose Marshall Plan is an example of possibly the best US diplomacy. I personally do not think that HRC was even Obama's most successful Secretary of State. Kerry's work on the Iran deal and the Paris Climate Accord - neither of which were likely to have happened without his essential effort make him clearly the better Secretary of State. Note that even when Trump took the US out, the world stayed in. Had it not succeeded, nothing would have happened in the Trump years and President Biden would likely not be able to achieve a worldwide agreement by Glasgow.

As to Afghanistan, I wonder if the way the question were asked, it set HRC up to appear to be at odds with Biden. Had HRC become President, this is an issue she too would have faced. In 2014, Kerry brokered a solution to a disputed Afghani election. That allowed Afghanistan to at least have some semblance of a government. It was better than things falling into chaos and allowed Afghanistan to move to where it is now. They are stronger than they were at any time.

However, there will either be a peace agreement with the Taliban that probably brings them back into the picture - meaning they will run candidates and have some power or there will be a civil war. The basic problem is that, unlike AQ, the Taliban are endemic to Afghanistan (and Pakistan) and many Pastums will likely support them.

As to HRC's comments. If the Taliban gain enough power - either way - there will be refugees. These will be people who either will be endangered or who do want the type of society that will happen if the Taliban has enough power. The gains of women and girls, a major goal of the US and particularly HRC, will be in jeopardy. If the Taliban return to leading the government or if there is a civil war, the conditions where Afghanistan becomes a base for terrorism.

For several years, the US have trained the Afghans. This started at least as far back as 2009. The coalition has helped Afghanistan both politically and militarily. At this point, the number of US and allied military in Afghanistan is a fraction of what it was. In the last Trump year, The US tried to negotiate with the Taliban without involvement of the Afghan government. Now, it will be the Afghan government negotiating with the Taliban.

[Politicub]

34. Love Hillary, but the armchair punditry is cheap and unhelpful.

[LanternWaste]

64. On what objective measure is her sentiment unhelpful?

(and make sure to read the article first so as not to appear uninformed as to context of both statement and place)

[marieo1]

36. Two of our greatest leaders

I totally trust Hilary's opinion. She was the greatest Secretary of State...........I also trust President Joe Biden's opinion. How else will we ever know if Afghanistan will ever be able to stand up to and defend itself against the Taliban and will fight to keep their people and country safe. My guess, it won't take too long to see if Afghanistan will be able to protect their country. Sooner or later we had to find out!!

[Midnight Writer]

41. The consequences began when we invaded the country.

[H2O Man]

42. Fuck that.

There may be a "civil war"? Give me a fucking break.

[twin_ghost]

44. We can't babysit Afghanistan for the rest of eternity.

It is up to the people in Afghanistan to lead their own country.

[maxsolomon]

59. Actually, we (and our allies) probably could babysit them indefinitely.

If Pakistan had withdrawn their support for the Taliban, instead of funding them and offering safe haven, then we might have even been able to calm things down.

But Pakistan didn't, and want us gone so their influence is unchallenged.

The majority of Afghanistanis are going to find they won't have much of a say in a theocracy. Pashtun Sunni Men will lead, and everyone else will lump it.

[markpkessinger]

46. Yes, there will be major consequences; and yes, it's time to leave

If we have not, in 20 years, been able to secure Afghanistan's future, there is simply no rational reason to believe we will be able to do so in another 5, 10 or 20 years. I have no doubt that something approaching a humanitarian catastrophe will ensue once we pull out. But it's a sad fact of the world we live in that humanitarian catastrophes happen around the globe all the time, and we do not, as a country, have the resources to forestall them. Ultimately, it will be up to the Afghans to find a way to overthrow the Taliban -- if indeed they wish to do so.

Hillary's stance on this points to one of the central reasons I didn't support her in the 2016 primary (although I did in the 2016 general election).

[marble falls]

58. No one thinks there will be safe aftermath to US withdrawel. This is not the time for Sec Clinton ..

... to be public in her remarks.

There will be a bloodbath when we leave. Staying will at best delay it at the expense of our dead. We had no reason to be there and have no reason to be there.

[Aussie105]

61. No doubt Afghanistan is in for a difficult time.

It's a country beset with problems, as viewed through American eyes.

But American boots on the ground aren't the solution.

Now, just reverse the situation . . .

The USA is a country with lots of problems too.
But would you welcome another country sending in troops to show you how to do things differently?
Would that solve any problems?
I'm guessing, no?

Let Afghans solve the problems in Afghanistan.
Or self destruct.
Their choice.

[Rebl2]

62. I agree with

Hillary Clinton. That is all.

[markpkessinger]

74. Okay, so tell us . . . .

. . . How many more years should our military remain in Afghanistan: another two, five, ten or twenty years? What makes you think we will be able to accomplish antying in that country that we haven't been able to accomplish in 20 years?

[orangecrush]

65. I agree with Hillary

With all due respect to Joe.

[Raine]

67. I got to agree with Hillary. nt

[riversedge]

68. US report: Taliban will likely curtail Afghan women's rights

[betsuni]

69. What she said was there are huge consequences both with staying and leaving.

I hate these misleading headlines.

What does Nato think? 2,500 out of 9,600 of the Nato Afghan mission are American.

[alphafemale]

76. How many decades will be sufficient, Hillary?

Mr. Biden.

Really?

And you wonder why you have Zero credibility except with people approving your antics.

[Mysterian]

77. I support President Biden's decision too.

With Mrs. Clinton's rationale, we'd still be in fucking Vietnam.

[obamanut2012]

81. As usual, she is correct