Earlier this year, at an annual State Department briefing for editorial writers, a special envoy hesitated and then insisted he go on background when I asked how the new secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was doing

He then rattled off key events in those first three months of the Obama Administration that impressed veteran foreign policy analysts. He acted a bit guilty for conveying an impression so positive so early in an administration, when the previous secretary was also a woman.

But unlike Condoleezza Rice, whose conservative political heft was better known in the halls of academia, state workers were relieved that Clinton preferred pragmatism to ideological loyalty.

The envoy cited how years of useless negotiations between rivals -- in an unidentified region -- were zapped within hours after Clinton showed up. She had been running late, so the nervous staff had little time to brief her on the issues that matter. But Secretary Clinton knew what questions to ask to hone in on what mattered most to both sides.

"Okay I got it," she said, leaving the staffers stunned as she headed inside.

"She gets it," the envoy said. "She has proved to be a natural. She has the toughness and scars to do what's needed with the job."

This is not the same Hillary whose desperation for office warned of a critical world crisis being bumbled at 3 a.m. if her presidential opponent, Barack Obama, was elected.

This is the political pragmatist Hillary, the recognized feminist and women's rights activist, who judged that a lot of states went red after the 2004 election because her party positioned itself too far left, participating in some of the same demonizing of its enemies that it self-righteously accused compassionate conservatives of doing.

She is a masterful conciliator, albeit the first woman so far with the best chance to be the first female U.S. president, who knows how to retrofit her life after a numbing defeat.

No wonder, the secretary of state is now viewed favorably by 62 percent of Americans, compared to President Obama's 56 percent rating.

Of course, the numbers mask the true weight of being a popular visionary that comes with the duty of being president.

Her own effort to reform the nation's health care system during husband President Bill Clinton's administration tanked her political stock miserably.

But to her credit, she's part architect of Obama's foreign policy around the world, using her self-crafted "smart diplomacy" to build, rather than dismantle bridges between longtime rivals and U.S. foes.

One Washington Post writer nailed how she's found her niche.

"Despite the pessimists who invoked the 'team of rivals' cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine-stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America's leaders awake all night."

So maybe it's worth all the sexist preoccupation with her wardrobe and weight and the ignorant questions about her husband's opinion on foreign policy after all.

Those recent poll numbers show she is demonstrating the recklessness of being a sour loser. They are validation for being a superb team player.

She'll be back as presidential candidate Hillary, I suspect, but not as someone forced to make lemons out of lemonade





By RHONDA B. GRAHAM, The News Journal, October 22, 2009

The White House will renew sanctions over Darfur in effort to end the conflict but also offer incentives for cooperation in fighting terrorism.

Reporting from Washington - The White House on Monday unveiled a Sudan policy that seeks a middle ground between punishing the country for its actions in Darfur and appeasing it, a step away from the get-tough policy advocated by President Obama during his election campaign.

The announcement of the new policy came after seven months of debate within the administration. It was cautiously welcomed by advocates of stringent measures to end the violence in Darfur, who expressed relief that the White House did not adopt a more conciliatory approach.

The administration wants Khartoum to end the fighting between Darfur rebels and government-backed militias. But it also is trying to persuade President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir's government to cooperate in fighting terrorism, and in implementing a 2005 agreement that ended a civil war between the country's northern and southern regions.

Under the new policy, administration officials said they would renew sanctions on Sudan for its actions in Darfur, which the U.S. has declared to be genocide. But they also will offer incentives for cooperation on key issues.

The policy also seeks to resolve an internal dispute among key parts of the Democratic Party constituency and powerful lawmakers.

Retired Air Force Gen. J. Scott Gration, the administration's special envoy to Sudan, has argued that the administration should end sanctions in hopes of winning broader cooperation.

But Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has long pushed for strong action against the Sudanese government. Gration's proposal also brought an outcry from Darfur advocacy groups and some members of Congress.

The International Criminal Court estimates that about 35,000 people have been killed by government troops and allied militias in the six-year war in Darfur, and that at least 100,000 more have died of disease and starvation as villagers fled the violence.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, announcing the new policy at the State Department, said the administration would use a "menu of incentives and disincentives" to achieve its goals. Clinton declined to spell out specific punishments and rewards, saying they were part of a classified document.

Bashir's government has strong Chinese economic support and has proved resistant to American pressure. But administration officials sought to underscore their determination to force a change in its behavior.

Obama, in a statement, said the United States and foreign allies must act "with a sense of urgency and purpose" to seek an end to the violence and human rights abuses in Darfur.

He also emphasized the importance of carrying out the North-South peace deal, saying the two goals "must both be pursued simultaneously with urgency."

Activists said the policy could work if Obama effectively implements penalties as well as incentives and raises the issue with foreign leaders.

"We need to see substantial personal involvement from President Obama -- for example, he must make Sudan a priority when he goes to China next month," said Jerry Fowler, president of the Washington-based Save Darfur Coalition.

Ghazi Salah Eddin Atabani, a senior advisor to Bashir, praised the new U.S. policy on Sudanese television, comparing it favorably with what he called the "extremist" version that had been in place, according to an Associated Press report.

"We hope this will end the debate among U.S. officials and we hope that now they will think with one mind and speak with one tongue," Atabani said.




By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, October 20, 2009

Clinton has paid off millions of dollars of debt left over after her failed bid to win the Democratic nomination and now owes $995,500, the reports show. All remaining money is owed to Penn Schoen & Berland, the polling firm operated by Mark Penn, Clinton's senior strategist for much of the campaign.

The campaign paid Penn's firm more than $500,000 for polling and mail services during the last quarter, the reports show.

At its peak, Clinton's debt stood at around $20 million. Much of the debt was owed to the candidate herself, who converted more than $13 million from loans to a contribution, meaning she will not see that money again. So far this year, Clinton has paid off more than $5 million in outstanding bills.

The debt was a source of friction when she quit her bid to back then-rival Barack Obama; some in Clinton's camp felt Obama did not do enough to help pay off the expenses, though he did ask his donors to help pay Clinton's bills. Obama himself wrote Clinton a check for $4,600.

Clinton has held several events this year to retire her outstanding obligations, including a January bash with singer Jon Bon Jovi and a raffle, held in April, that gave one supporter the chance to spend a day in New York City with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Her campaign, once headquartered in Arlington with a staff of hundreds, is now located in an office building on K Street, staffed by six employees and a fundraiser.





By Reid Wilson, The Hill, October 20, 2009

The U.S. urges President Hamid Karzai to accept a U.N.-backed panel's decision to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she's encouraged.

Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan - A United Nations-backed panel Monday tossed out hundreds of thousands of ballots cast in August for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and independent election observers said the new figures dictated that a runoff election should take place.

Karzai and election officials loyal to him appeared to balk initially at accepting the fraud investigators' finding that he did not attain the majority needed for a first-round win in the landmark presidential election. That would trigger a runoff with his main challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah.

While Abdullah renewed demands for a runoff vote, Western diplomats and the Obama administration urgently sought to persuade Karzai to acknowledge the validity of the panel's finding. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was encouraged by the direction events were taking.

Failure to accept the election panel's finding, diplomats and administration officials warned Karzai, could risk triggering a constitutional crisis and raise the specter of street violence and ethnic strife.

Millions of Afghans risked their safety to go to the polls on election day, defying Taliban threats and a drumbeat of attacks in the weeks leading up to the vote.

The election has already been a huge disappointment to the West, which had hoped the balloting would showcase Afghanistan's nascent democracy and lend credibility to not only the central government but the entire war effort, now in its ninth year.

Two months of intense wrangling over the election results have delayed key decisions in Washington and among NATO allies on troop levels and battlefield strategy in Afghanistan. The White House has openly questioned whether the election would lead to a legitimate partnership with the next Afghan administration.

The White House has been leaning on Karzai, stressing over the weekend that it would delay a decision on additional U.S. troops until the election issue was sorted out. Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and allied commander, has asked for up to 40,000 additional American troops, but White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said in interviews that it would be "reckless" to send more personnel without knowing how the Afghan government was taking shape.

"It is now up to the Afghans to make this legitimate," said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is visiting the region, flew to Kabul from Pakistan and met with Karzai on Monday evening, shortly after the Electoral Complaints Commission invalidated hundreds of thousands of ballots cast for the president in the Aug. 20 vote.

Independent election observers and officials familiar with the recount procedure calculated that after subtracting those votes, Karzai's share fell to 48.3% -- short of the 50%-plus he needs in order to win outright. A preliminary vote tally had given him 54.6%. To become final, the audit panel's finding must be certified by an Afghan body known as the Independent Election Commission, which is ostensibly impartial but is considered largely loyal to Karzai.

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul issued a carefully worded statement calling on Afghan election officials to "implement those orders with all due speed." Clinton urged the Afghan government to "follow the constitution and the legal process," which require a runoff when no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.

"I am very hopeful that we will see a resolution, in line with the constitutional order, in the next several days," Clinton told reporters in Washington.

She did not want to preempt an announcement by Karzai, she said, "but I am encouraged at the direction that the situation is moving."

Abdullah's campaign hailed the new figures, which revised his share upward from about 28% to 31%, and praised the panel's work as "accurate and thorough."

"This would mean a runoff, which we are happy about," said a senior aide, Fazel Sancharaki.

Karzai's camp, however, described the new figures as meaningless without certification by the election commission -- a step that was originally envisioned as a formality. The commission made no immediate statement in response to the fraud panel's finding.

A Karzai campaign spokesman, Wahid Omar, expressed "significant doubts" about the audit, which was based on a statistical sampling of suspect ballots, and said he did not know whether it would be certified.

"This report does not add to anybody's information in any way," Omar said of the eight-week investigation.

The contentious process has left many Afghans disillusioned and angry.

"People are disappointed, really disappointed," said Afghan political analyst Abdulhadi Hairan. "It will be hard for them to trust the next government."

The weeks since the vote have spotlighted the deterioration in Karzai's relations with the U.S. Once the darling of the Bush administration, he has in recent years been tarred by allegations of mismanagement and corruption.

Tensions have been building amid ever-broader hints from the Karzai camp that the president might reject the finding of the complaints commission.

As the dispute has dragged on, Karzai's aides have sought to capitalize on a vein of anti-foreign sentiment that is never far from the surface in Afghan politics. Three of the fraud panel's five members are foreigners appointed by the United Nations.

Last week, one of the two Afghan members, a Karzai ally, resigned, citing foreign interference.

A highly undiplomatic parallel dispute erupted last month when Peter Galbraith, the ranking U.S. official in the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, was fired after raising accusations that fraud allegations against Karzai's campaign were not being vigorously investigated.

The commission's finding was released in the form of raw data concerning the percentage of ballots invalidated in several categories. A number of independent election observers, including the U.S.-based group Democracy International, crunched the numbers and concluded that Karzai had fallen short.

Once the result is certified, a runoff -- if needed -- is to be held within two weeks. But Afghanistan's harsh winter is closing in, and mid-November is considered the cutoff for staging a new vote. After that, mountain passes are likely to be blocked by snow.

Clinton expressed confidence a runoff could be held despite the approaching winter.

"We have every assurance from Gen. McChrystal and the [NATO] command, as well as the Afghan security representative, that it is absolutely possible to do," she said.

Some closed-door discussions have centered on alternatives such as the creation of a coalition government. But Abdullah is seen as less likely to compromise in light of the panel's finding.

A "parade" of U.S., Afghan and international officials have been visiting the presidential palace in Kabul to counsel Karzai on his next move, said J. Alexander Thier of the U.S. Institute of Peace, who has taken part in the international monitoring effort.

He said he had gotten mixed signals on whether Karzai was likely to accept the conclusions of the panel. But he said that given the apparent scale of the fraud, "it would be untenable for Karzai to simply stonewall and not play ball at all."




By Laura King, Los Angeles Times, October 20, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that the administration of President Barack Obama wants "a Russia that is prosperous, peaceful, and strong." The U.S., said Secretary Clinton, wants to be Russia's partner "in helping to address some of the most difficult challenges that the world faces."

Secretary Clinton was in Moscow, where she met with senior Russian officials to discuss the progress on a successor agreement to START, cooperation on nonproliferation and counterterrorism, and next steps for the Bilateral Presidential Commission, instituted to facilitate cooperation between the United States and Russia.

At a town hall meeting at Moscow State University, Secretary Clinton said the world today faces "a spectacular array of challenges – from threats to global security to economic crisis to a fragile environment. Amid that landscape, Russia stands out as a country of almost unlimited talents and potential." Our world, said Secretary Clinton, will be a vastly better place if the intellectual energy that resides in both our countries is focused on working together to address these common challenges.

Secretary Clinton noted that the U.S. partnership with Russia has helped prevent the spread of nuclear arms. Both nations have committed to reducing their nuclear weapons stockpile. The U.S. and Russia have also cooperated in the fight against terrorism. "We need to build on what we have already done," she said.

"The biggest immediate threat the world faces are nuclear weapons under the control of groups and persons who do not value the future, who have a different set of world views, who are on the side of death instead of life, who believe martyrdom and suicide attacks are a positive way to end one's life." This is an important area for U.S.-Russia cooperation.

Innovation is the key to meeting the challenges before us, said Secretary Clinton. "And so is cultivating core freedoms, free speech, freedom of the press, the freedom to participate in the political process."

The future of U.S.-Russia relations, Secretary Clinton said, is very positive. "There will be disagreements along the way, as there should be. But it is our task, and I believe our responsibility to work toward greater understanding and a more durable partnership."




Voice of America, October 18, 2009

Hillary Rodham Clinton -- former first lady, presidential contender, and now secretary of state -- knows painfully first-hand how difficult a lift health care is.

So she counsels patience as Congress and the White House tries to come up with a bill that can pass -- and that can work.

"I'm very encouraged by the action that's going on in the Senate. But I think I, probably better than anyone, know how difficult this is," she said in an interview aired on CNN today.

"But we've made a lot of progress in the last nine months. And I'm very optimistic we're going to get a health care plan that will really improve the lives of the American people," added Clinton, who led a White House health care task force in 1993-94 that submitted a detailed bill to Congress that was derided as "Hillarycare" and went nowhere.

In the interview, Clinton also preached patience on Obama's decision whether to dispatch more US troops to Afghanistan, saying that "it's to the president's credit that he has had the patience and the persistence to really force the process without responding prematurely."

The president, she said, needs to closely scrutinize the broad view of what the US mission in Afghanistan should be and how best to accomplish it, citing a recent strategic review.

"It was quite remarkable that the report came in with two big ideas that had not, in my view, been fully either explored or certainly implemented in the prior eight years," she said. "One was you've got to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together. Now, that may sound self-evident. But that wasn't what was being done previously. And you have to have a much greater integration of the civilian and the military efforts."

By Foon Rhee, The Boston Globe, October 16, 2009

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that the Obama administration expected President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to win an anticipated runoff election and that the vote would not affect President Obama's decision about whether to send more troops to the country.

But other administration officials said it was possible that if the runoff was held quickly and the results were known by mid-November, Mr. Obama might delay his decision on troops until then. Until now, White House advisers have said they expect Mr. Obama to make his decision by late October or early November.

In an interview with CNN, Mrs. Clinton said of Mr. Karzai that "I think one can conclude that the likelihood of him winning a second round is probably pretty high." She also said that Mr. Obama would make his decision "on his own timetable" and not link it to the election results.

Afghan and American officials say they expect an Afghan election commission to announce Saturday that Mr. Karzai received less than 50 percent of the vote in the Aug. 20 election, which was marred by widespread evidence of fraud and ballot-stuffing for Mr. Karzai. Based on those results, a runoff would be required under the Afghan Constitution.

Afghan and American officials say it is imperative that the second election occur by early November, before cold weather closes roads, making voting impossible before the spring. Even so, officials say that preparing for an election in such a short time will be extraordinarily difficult.

Mr. Obama has another meeting scheduled for late next week to discuss whether to send more troops. An administration official said that more meetings were anticipated for the following week.

Mr. Karzai's main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, hinted this week that he might be willing to enter into a power-sharing agreement with Mr. Karzai, and Mr. Karzai's ambassador to Washington, Said Tayeb Jawad, did not reject the idea. But it is unclear if such a deal would be allowed under the Afghan Constitution.

The Obama administration has grown increasingly dispirited about what it sees as the many failures in Mr. Karzai's government, and has spent large parts of its meetings debating whether it would make more sense to focus on building up a stronger relationship with the country's regional leaders.

Mrs. Clinton told CNN that Mr. Obama was looking at "how we can have a different and more effective relationship with the Afghanistan government, whoever is the final victor, but not only with the government in Kabul, but with governors throughout the country, with what they call subnational, regional, local leaders. And there's been a lot of thought given as to how we would do that."

4 U.S. Soldiers and 2 Afghans Die

Two American soldiers were instantly killed and two others died of their wounds after their patrol vehicle hit a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan, military officials said Friday.

The explosion took place on Thursday, but no other information was released, pending notification of family members, said Lt. j.g. Tommy Groves, a spokesman for the American forces.

In a separate episode, an Afghan woman and a child were killed in cross-fire in southeastern Afghanistan during an operation to find militants, the international forces in Afghanistan said.

By Elisabeth Bumiller, The New York Times, October 16, 2009

From Hillary Clinton, straight talk on democracy in Russia

IT'S BECOME SO commonplace that the world little noticed last Sunday when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin staged another phony, Soviet-style election. As in the old days, the ruling party (now known as "United Russia" instead of "Communist Party of the Soviet Union") won a smashing victory in local jurisdictions across the country, with opposing party politicians reduced to bit parts permitted for decorative effect only. Mr. Medvedev, who frequently impresses Western politicians with his statements in praise of democracy, hailed the elections as "well organized," which we suppose is undeniable. Mr. Putin, who is less sentimental about these things, dismissed protesting politicians as whiners: "Those who don't win are never happy," he sniffed.

So it was gratifying to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, coincidentally visiting Moscow in the days after the election, speak firmly in defense of true democracy. To a group of civil society leaders, increasingly embattled and in danger in Mr. Putin's Russia, Ms. Clinton said, "Both President Obama and I want to stress strongly how the United States stands with those who work for freedom, [who] campaign for justice and democracy, and who risk their lives to speak out for human rights."

She repeated the message at Moscow State University, telling students that the innovation Mr. Medvedev says he wants to foster in society can't flourish without "core freedoms, free speech, freedom of the press, the freedom to participate in the political process." She granted an interview to Echo Moskvy Radio, one of the few remaining independent media outlets of any significance, where she expressed "no doubt" that "democracy is in Russia's best interests, that respecting human rights, an independent judiciary, a free media are in the interests of building a strong, stable political system." And, at the civil society meeting, she was specific, noting that 18 journalists have been killed in Russia since 2000, with only one of those crimes solved. "When violence like this goes unpunished in any society," Ms. Clinton said, "it's undermining the rule of law, chills public discourse, which is, after all, the lifeblood of an open society."

As Ms. Clinton made clear, such honesty need not impede diplomatic engagement. Russian leaders will act in their interests, as they see them, in any case. But her words may cheer those in Russia who continue to fight for their rights, against long odds, while reminding all Russians that a less cynical government might lead to a more prosperous country.

The Washington Post, October 17, 2009

A Gallup poll shows more people view Secretary of State Hillary Clinton favorably than President Obama.

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 15 -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced late Wednesday that the United States is prepared to begin negotiations on a global treaty regulating trade in conventional weapons but said Washington would sign the accord only if all other states agreed.

The move marks a shift in policy from the Bush administration, which staunchly opposed U.N. negotiations to regulate the $55 billion-a-year arms trade. The Obama administration hopes it can use the talks to press other governments to adopt a rigorous system of export controls similar to one put in place to regulate U.S. arms exports.

"The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons," Clinton said. But she said the United States would support the negotiations only if they are conducted under "the rule of consensus decision-making" needed to ensure universal compliance.

Argentina, Australia, Britain, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya are drafting a U.N. General Assembly resolution that would call for formal negotiations on such a treaty, probably beginning in the spring. In a concession to the United States, the drafters have included language that would require the talks to proceed on a consensus basis. It would also leave it up to states to "exclusively" regulate the arms trade within their borders.

The provision was included to forestall criticism from U.S. conservatives that an arms trade treaty would be a first step toward regulating the U.S. arms trade.

John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the U.S. strategy is less about regulating the arms trade than building a case for restricting the domestic arms trade. "This has little or nothing to do with the international trade in conventional arms," he said. "This will strengthen the hand of a government that wants to regulate private ownership of firearms."

Supporters of the negotiations rejected Bolton's complaint.

"No government is discussing a treaty that would ever impact the right to bear arms, nor require regulation of domestic sales of arms," said Scott Stedjan, a senior policy adviser at the relief group Oxfam America. "This is totally about international transfer of arms so that they don't go to human rights abusers."

The United States is the world's largest supplier of conventional weapons, accounting last year for nearly 70 percent of the global arms sales on contracts valued at $37.8 billion. Italy and Russia were second and third, with $3.7 billion and $3.5 billion in arms sales, according to figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service.

Arms control experts and rights advocates welcomed the U.S. commitment to participate in U.N. talks, saying the negotiations could help impose some basic rules in an industry that operates in the shadows, fuels conflicts and provides arms to terrorist groups and insurgents.

But they expressed concern that the U.S. insistence on consensus would provide any state in the world with the power to veto such a treaty. "The U.S. goal to raise global standards is laudable, but its insistence on consensus is likely to prove counterproductive," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "It will give any country that wants to derail the process an opportunity to do so."

The United Nations first began work on a conventional-arms trade treaty in 2006, after 153 states adopted a General Assembly resolution calling for talks aimed at a 2012 U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty. The United States was the only country to vote against the resolution. But other arms suppliers, including China, Russia, Israel and Egypt, have been cool to the treaty, abstaining in two General Assembly votes aimed at moving the negotiations forward.

By Colum Lynch, The Washington Post, October 16, 2009

As the White House debates how to respond to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's call for additional troops in Afghanistan, two powerful allies are said to be pushing for an escalation of U.S. forces. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton seem to have done a mind meld on Afghanistan policy.

Both politically savvy, experienced and efficient players inside the government bureaucracy, they present a formidable force as the administration sorts out its Afghan strategy. Reportedly, they both favor a "middle ground" somewhere south of the 80,000 additional troops many "hawks" really want. Their likely recommendation is 40,000, a number often mentioned as a White House target.

Gates has prospered through a long government career by understanding the political climate of the country and mastering the art of the possible. Clinton is one of the best political strategists in the country. They both understand that Americans are fed up with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and seriously doubt that we can accomplish anything worthwhile in either country. As Vice President Joe Biden seems to understand, they are increasingly seeing our adventure in Afghanistan as not being worth the blood and treasure expended on it. Unlike Biden, however, Gates and Clinton seem committed to soldiering on - the only question being, just how much of a commitment will people accept? Not much, is the likely answer.

Americans are a patriotic and patient lot. The country got behind our invasion of Afghanistan because there was much evidence that the ruling Taliban was, indeed, providing a sanctuary to al Qaeda terrorists. We believed the country was likely where the Sept. 11 plot was hatched and where many terrorists were trained. Our military forces were by and large successful in driving the Taliban out of the country, although Osama bin Laden slipped through our hands. Then our soldiers were diverted to Iraq to pursue the same enemy we had supposedly just defeated in Afghanistan.

It turns out there were no al Qaeda in Iraq, and frustration with that war greatly contributed to Barack Obama's winning the presidency - a phenomenon that Hillary Clinton watched from the sidelines after losing her race for the nomination. Now Americans are realizing that while we turned our back on Afghanistan, the country went to hell in a hand-basket. The corrupt and arrogant government of Hamid Karzai proceeded to waste and steal billions of dollars of U.S. aid and build a vast criminal organization to profit from the drug business. The Afghans got virtually nothing from the regime we propped up, and the remnants of the Taliban saw their opportunity.

Eight years later, most of the country is controlled by what we loosely call the Taliban but is largely a homegrown insurgency of mujahedeen. Al Qaeda seems to be gone, although some hawks still use the threat of their return as an excuse for continuing the war. (Most intelligence analysts conclude there is virtually no cooperation or contact between al Qaeda and leaders of the Afghan insurgency.) America is increasingly viewed as an occupying power by most Afghans, and an inept one at that. The army and police force of Karzai's government are weak, ineffective and often disloyal. What passes for justice or delivery of basic government services is often delivered by the insurgents, not the government hunkered down in Kabul. Afghanistan has never been a cohesive nation and is no more so now than before we invaded the country.

More and more Americans are fed up with what they see as a misadventure. The Pentagon says building a stable government there would take decades.

Counterinsurgency strategy says nearly 650,000 troops would be required to take, hold and secure the country so such a government could be built. We have about 68,000 troops in the country now, and the "middle ground" being proposed by McChrystal, Gates and Clinton would add somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000.

Didn't we learn that lesson in Vietnam? Incremental increases like these only prolong the agony. Counterinsurgency-light will not win this war; it will only add our nation to the long list of Western powers that have eventually had to leave Afghanistan's harsh environment in disgrace. Gates and Clinton should abandon their search for an acceptable level of pain and advise the president to begin winding this war down. What little we stand to gain is just not worth the blood and treasure it is taking. Americans get that message. Their leaders should too.





By Ben Goddard, The Hill, October 14, 2009

MOSCOW - Denting President Obama's hopes for a powerful ally in his campaign to press Iran on its nuclear program, Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday that threatening Tehran now with harsh new sanctions would be "counterproductive."

The minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said after meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here that diplomacy should be given a chance to work, particularly after a meeting in Geneva this month in which the Iranian government said it would allow United Nations inspectors to visit its clandestine nuclear enrichment site near the holy city of Qum.

"At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process," he said. "Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive."

Mr. Lavrov's resistance was striking given that, just three weeks before, President Dmitri A. Medvedev said that "in some cases, sanctions are inevitable." American officials had hailed that statement as a sign that Russia was finally coming around to the Obama administration's view that Iran is best handled with diplomacy backed by a credible threat of sanctions.

It also came after the Obama administration announced that it would retool a European missile defense system fiercely opposed by Russia. That move was thought to have paid dividends for the White House when Mr. Medvedev appeared to throw his support behind Mr. Obama on Iran, though American officials say the Russian president was also likely to have been reacting to the disclosure of the secret nuclear site near Qum.

After the meeting with Mr. Lavrov, Mrs. Clinton met Mr. Medvedev later on Tuesday, and two administration officials said he did not retreat from his support in his private discussions with her. But he said nothing about Iran publicly before or after the meeting. Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who has been skeptical of sanctions, was in China on a trade mission.

Mr. Lavrov said that the talks in Geneva between Iran and other countries had raised hopes for a diplomatic solution, and that it made no sense to discuss sanctions as long as those negotiations were under way. "We are maybe not 100 percent, but still have chances to succeed," he said.

His position conflicts with that of the Obama administration, which argues that the threat of sanctions is crucial to the prospect for a diplomatic solution. Unless Russia and China join the United States and Europe in signaling that the sanctions may be necessary if diplomacy fails, American officials have said, Iran has less incentive to make concessions.

A Russian refusal to back sanctions could expose the Obama administration to criticism at home, where Republicans have argued that the president yielded to Kremlin concerns on the missile shield without getting much in return.

Enlisting Russia is critical for any sanctions campaign because of its geopolitical links to Iran. Russia's refusal to act now may influence China, which has invested heavily in Iranian oil and gas reserves and has also been wary of sanctions. That Mr. Putin was in Beijing cutting deals while Mrs. Clinton was in Moscow warning about Iran was not lost on analysts here.

Though Mrs. Clinton also stressed the importance of diplomacy, she reiterated the administration's view that there must be a parallel track of sanctions to prevent Iran from dragging its feet in negotiations.

"In the absence of any significant progress, we will be seeking to rally international opinion behind additional sanctions," she said at the joint news conference with Mr. Lavrov.

Mrs. Clinton insisted the United States did not make any specific requests of Russia at the meeting. But a day earlier, a senior official traveling with her said that the United States would be looking for "specific forms of pressure" that Russia would be prepared to back.

The next major step in the diplomatic process will be on Monday, when Iran and officials from France and Russia are to meet in Vienna to discuss the details of a plan to ship a majority of Iran's stockpile of lightly enriched uranium out of the country to be enriched in Russia to a higher grade. The uranium would then be returned to Iran, where it would fuel a research reactor.

That agreement was the most tangible result of the talks in Geneva between Iran and a group of countries: the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. A senior American official said that in his meeting with Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lavrov had told her that Russia was determined to hold Iran to the deal and would consider sanctions if the Iranians reneged on it.

While Iran dominated attention during Mrs. Clinton's visit, her first trip to Russia as secretary of state, she and Mr. Lavrov discussed a wide range of issues, including the decision to redesign the missile-defense system.

Despite a clear warming trend since Mr. Obama took office, old strains remain, especially over the West's role in the other former Soviet republics. In their meetings, officials said, Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Lavrov pointed to recent comments by a senior American defense official that the United States might consider including Ukraine in any future antimissile system.

Russia's ties with Ukraine have grown contentious in recent years, as Ukraine has tilted toward the West. The comments by the American defense official, Alexander Vershbow, clearly irritated the Kremlin.

A senior American official said that the United States had no plan to install missile-defense equipment in Ukraine, but that it might use data from radar stations in the country.

Analysts here expressed little surprise at Mr. Lavrov's refusal to threaten Iran. Fyodor Lukyanov, editor in chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, said the administration was misguided if it believed that there had been a fundamental shift in Russia's position in recent weeks.

Mr. Medvedev's comments during his visit to the United States last month represented more of a political gesture because of the missile-defense decision, rather than a Russian concession, he said.

"It was not based on a new assessment of an Iranian threat," he said. "It was just a feeling that Russia had to be polite and react to what Obama did."

Mr. Lukyanov pointed out that the United States and Russia approach Iran from sharply different perspectives. Russia and Iran are neighbors, and the Kremlin has for many years had positive dealings with Iran on regional issues, including unrest in Chechnya and in Central Asia.

"Iran is seen by Russia as much more rational and reliable than it is seen by the United States or Israel," he said.




By Mark Landler and Clifford J. Levy, The New York Times, October 14, 2009

With help from Hillary Rodham Clinton, Turkey and Armenia take a step toward rapprochement.

SECRETARY OF STATE Hillary Rodham Clinton executed some deft diplomacy last weekend as the leaders of Turkey and Armenia signed a potentially historic deal to establish normal diplomatic relations and reopen their borders. We say "potentially" because there are some big obstacles to implementing the accord, which we'll come back to. But Ms. Clinton helped to ensure that the signing ceremony in Zurich went forward after four hours of last-minute mediation. Not for the first time in her short tenure, she proved capable of overcoming an impasse and teasing out a favorable outcome for the United States.

The rapprochement between these two nations matters to the United States for a number of reasons. It could help stabilize the volatile Caucasus region, open the way for new corridors for the export of gas and oil to the West, ease Russia's political domination of Armenia and remove a major irritant from U.S. relations with Turkey. The Obama administration worked diligently to promote the accord: Ms. Clinton made 29 phone calls to the leaders of the two nations. President Obama played a part by sidestepping a campaign promise to formally recognize the mass killing of Armenians by Turks during World War I as "genocide."

The genocide issue -- and the refusal of some in the American Armenian community to compromise on it -- still threatens to undo the deal. The opening of the border, closed since 1993, would be a huge benefit to impoverished and landlocked Armenia. But there is resistance to a provision of the accords that would set up a joint commission to study the history of the massacres. Opponents say this could give Turkey, which denies that a genocide took place, a means to filibuster the issue -- and to stop the annual attempt by some in the U.S. Congress to pass a resolution declaring that genocide occurred. In fact, the issue is one best left to the two countries; that several U.S. Armenian groups have endorsed the accord is a victory for common sense.

A more formidable obstacle to the deal may be Armenia's unresolved dispute with another neighbor, Azerbaijan, over the ethnically Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is occupied by Armenia along with some neighboring Azeri territory. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan took the courageous step of declining to make the settlement of this "frozen conflict" a precondition to his accord with Armenia -- thereby inviting the wrath of Azerbaijan, which is an ally and energy supplier to Turkey. But Mr. Erdogan has said -- most recently last Sunday -- that his government will not go forward with the deal unless Armenia executes at least a partial withdrawal from Azerbaijan. That would be a tough step for Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and require considerable international support: more delicate work for Ms. Clinton.

The Washington Post, October 14, 2009

Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart

MOSCOW, Oct. 13 -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton held lengthy talks with senior Russian officials Tuesday as part of an intense American effort to improve relations, but she made few gains on a top U.S. priority -- increasing pressure on Iran.

Clinton urged her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, to work together on developing possible sanctions in case international negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program fail, said a U.S. official close to the talks.

But the Russian was cool to the idea, saying he was concerned about backing Iran into a corner, the U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive sessions.

Emerging from four hours of talks with Clinton, Lavrov told reporters that "threats, sanctions and threats of pressure" against Iran would be "counterproductive."

Senior administration officials said that the differences are tactical rather than substantive. Both sides agreed that Iran would face sanctions if it failed to carry out its obligations, a State Department official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

But failure to win a Russian commitment to a set of specific sanctions in advance could leave the administration vulnerable to Republican criticism that it gave the Kremlin what it wanted by overhauling missile defense plans in Europe but that it got nothing in return.

Russia's support is key to getting U.N. Security Council approval of any sanctions, but the country has traditionally been cautious on confronting Iran, a key trading partner and neighbor. In recent years, however, Russia has grown increasingly concerned about indications that Iran could be developing nuclear weapons, analysts say. Iran insists that its program is aimed only at producing energy.

Lavrov told reporters that Russia wants to focus on negotiations for now -- particularly the concessions made by Iran this month, after the revelation that it had built a secret nuclear facility near Qom. Under heavy international pressure, the Islamic republic agreed to admit inspectors and send much of its uranium to Russia for enrichment.

Clinton emphasized in her meeting with Lavrov that she favors a two-track approach of negotiations and the threat of punishment.

"We need to prepare the track of pressure. There's cajolement and there's pressure" at the same time, said the official close to the talks, describing her argument.

"Where the Russians have a different approach is. . . . they want to exhaust all the diplomatic avenues before we talk about sanctions," the official said.

During her visit, part of a five-day European trip, Clinton also met with civil-society activists at Spaso House, the U.S. ambassador's residence, promising them that promoting democracy remains an important part of the administration's agenda.

"We will lead based on values and not just interests," Clinton said.

Several of those in attendance said that they liked Clinton's speech, noting that she spoke not only about improving governance but also about accountability of the government, a subject that was not emphasized as often in the Bush years.

"It's a signal for people we are not alone," said Natalia Budaeva, country director for the International Republican Institute.

Clinton concluded her evening with a night at the opera -- Prokofiev's "Love of Three Oranges." She wraps up her visit to Russia on Wednesday with a trip to Tatarstan.

By Mary Beth Sheridan, The Washington Post, October 14, 2009

KAZAN, Russia - On a day that took her from an elite Moscow university to this bustling city in Russia's Muslim hinterland, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton paid tribute on Wednesday to religious tolerance, while also challenging Russia's leaders to open their political system and allow more dissent.

In a speech to nearly 1,000 students at Moscow State University, Mrs. Clinton spoke far more forcefully about human rights and the rule of law than she did on a trip to China earlier this year. Russia, she said, could best fulfill its potential by protecting basic freedoms.

"That's why attacks on journalists and human rights activists are such a great concern, because it is a threat to progress," she said. "The more open Russia will become, the more Russia will contribute."

As if to illustrate that point, Mrs. Clinton then traveled from Moscow to Kazan, the 1,000-year-old capital of Tatarstan, a Russian republic where Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics live together peacefully, with none of the violent separatism that afflicts places like Chechnya.

Mrs. Clinton was met by Tatarstan's longtime president, Mintimer S. Shaimiev, who showed her around a mosque and an Orthodox cathedral, both of which are within the walls of Kazan's version of the Kremlin. Mr. Shaimiev is no democrat, but he played up his ecumenical credentials.

"This is a multiethnic place," he told her as she gazed at a shimmering chandelier in the mosque. "There are plenty of mixed marriages."

Mrs. Clinton praised Mr. Shaimiev for being "someone who is well known for fostering religious tolerance."

The three-hour side trip to Tatarstan captured the ambitions and limitations of Mrs. Clinton's approach to being secretary of state, nine months into her tenure. It was driven, her aides say, by her desire to get out of capital cities, to places where she could mingle with people.

But the stop in Kazan had a rushed feel to it, and Mrs. Clinton has little time these days for even brief forays. Minutes after her plane took off from Kazan, she holed up in her cabin to take part, by secure telephone link, in the White House's latest meeting on Afghanistan.

Mrs. Clinton has managed to keep encounters with students on her schedule. Her talk in Moscow drew noisy applause, and she was asked questions about issues like the American role in the global economic crisis and the dispute between the United States and Russia over Georgia.

Asked to name the book that had made the biggest impact on her, she singled out "The Brothers Karamazov." The parable of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's novel, she said, speaks to the dangers of certitude.

"For a lot of reasons, that was an important part of my thinking," Mrs. Clinton said. "One of the greatest threats we face is from people who believe they are absolutely, certainly right about everything."

From there, it was a short rhetorical leap for Mrs. Clinton to encourage Russia to open its political system.

She even struck an implicit blow for diversity when she cut the ribbon on a statue of the poet Wait Whitman at the university. Local gay activists protested because one of the Russian officials on hand to honor Whitman, a gay icon, was Moscow's mayor, Yuri M. Luzhkov, who has made hostile statements about homosexuals and banned gay parades in the city.

For her part, Mrs. Clinton noted that in his writing Whitman celebrated the similarities between Russians and Americans.

Yet Mrs. Clinton's emphasis was on the new rather than the old. She told the students that they symbolized a new Russia, one that produced innovators like Sergey Brin, who was born in Moscow and helped to start the Internet search giant Google. And she praised President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia for charting a vision of the country's future based on technological innovation rather than mineral wealth.

Mrs. Clinton's visit underscores the Obama administration's growing attachment to Mr. Medvedev, Vladimir V. Putin's handpicked choice to succeed him as president. Last month, the White House made much of Mr. Medvedev's support for its tough stance toward Iran.

After Mrs. Clinton's meeting on Tuesday with the foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, in which he riled out threatening Iran with sanction, she went to see Mr. Medvedev at his dacha outside Moscow. American officials said that Mr. Medvedev was unstinting in his support for the administration.

But on a visit to Beijing on Wednesday, Mr. Putin told reporters that he believed that it was too early to consider tough sanctions against Iran, suggesting that threats would poison negotiations.





By Mark Landler, The New York Times, October 14, 2009

MOSCOW - Russia's leading gay activist said Wednesday that he was disappointed that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with an outspoken foe of gay rights during her two-day trip to Russia and did not decry homophobia in the country.

Clinton attended a ceremony unveiling a statue of Walt Whitman at Moscow State University with Russian officials including Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov. Luzhkov has blocked all attempts to hold gay pride marches in Moscow, once saying they "can be described in no other way than as satanic."

Clinton did not mention of the issue during the ceremony. Some biographers have described Whitman as homosexual and U.S. gay activists have claimed him as symbol of their movement.

"Just as Pushkin and Whitman reset poetry we are resetting our relations for the 21st century," Clinton said. A statue of the Russian poet Alexander Pushkin was erected at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., in 2000.

It was not clear whether Luzhkov was aware of Whitman's status as a gay icon, and sponsors of the statue said they were honoring Whitman strictly for his contributions to literature.

"Whitman transcended his sexuality in his art and I would like to thank Mayor Luzhkov for welcoming him in his city and have absolutely nothing to say about those things," said James W. Symington, a former four-time congressman for Missouri and representative of the American-Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation.

Gay activist Nikolai Alexeyev said Wednesday he was disappointed Clinton did not discuss discrimination against gays.

"Russia is supposed to be a democracy and she said nothing," he said.

Alexeyev had called on Clinton to denounce what he called entrenched and degrading homophobic attitudes in Russia at a news conference Tuesday.

A U.S. State Department spokesman said the department was unaware of any request from the Russian gay community.

Homosexuality was only decriminalized in Russia in 1993 and homophobic attitudes remain widespread.

Activists have taken the struggle to hold a gay pride parade in Moscow to the European Court of Justice, which is scheduled to rule on the issue in early 2010.

The statue of Walt Whitman was placed in the gardens of Moscow State University, where in May more than 30 gay activists were arrested for attempting to hold a pride march.

The statue of Walt Whitman will complement a statue of the Russian poet Alexander Pushkin installed in Washington in 2000.

Whitman sculptor Alexander Bourganov remarked at a press conference Tuesday that the opening had been delayed and been politically difficult. He did not elaborate.

By Ben Judah, The Associated Press, October 14, 2009

MOSCOW - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stressed to Russian university students Wednesday that their country's prosperity was dependent on its willingness to cultivate core freedoms, including the freedom to participate in the political process.

"Citizens must be empowered to help formulate the laws under which they live," she told students at Moscow State University. "They need to know that their investments of time, money and intellectual property will be safeguarded by the institutions of government."

Clinton is wrapping up a five-day tour of Europe with a series of informal meetings in Moscow and the Russian republic of Tatarstan aimed at helping redefine U.S.-Russian relations.

Her message to the students appeared aimed in part at countering the fears of Russia's beleaguered liberal democrats that the U.S. would no longer seek to hold the Kremlin accountable for the rollback of democracy and violations of human rights in exchange for Russia's cooperation on Iran and Afghanistan.

"In an innovative society, people must be free to take unpopular positions, disagree with conventional wisdom, know they are safe to challenge abuses of authority," Clinton said. "That's why attacks on journalists and human rights defenders here in Russia is such a great concern: because it is a threat to progress."

Prior to the round-table discussion with students, Clinton attended the unveiling of a statue of the American poet Walt Whitman on the university's campus.

"Just as Pushkin and Whitman reset poetry we are resetting our relations for the 21st century," Clinton said. A statue of the Russian poet Alexander Pushkin was placed at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., in 2000.

Later, Clinton was traveling to Kazan, the capital of religiously and ethnically diverse Tatarstan, east of Moscow.

Clinton said she chose Kazan because she heard it's a beautiful city where Muslims and Orthodox Christians live peacefully together. "I want to see that for myself and hear how successful that has been," she said in an interview on Ekho Moskvy radio Wednesday.

She will be the first secretary of state ever to visit Kazan, which bills itself as Russia's third capital, and Tatarstan, an oil-rich moderate Muslim-majority republic that is often hailed as a model of multicultural tolerance.

Clinton returns to Washington late Wednesday.

By MATTHEW LEE , The Associated Press, October 14, 2009