World

Officials urge continued effort in Afghanistan following Osama bin Laden killing

Neil Munro
White House Correspondent

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today emerged from the State Department to say that Osama bin Laden’s death should spur the United States to make more progress in Afghanistan, and will bolster the populist movement that has toppled dictators in Egypt and Tunisia.

The theme was hammered home by John Brennan, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counter-terrorism. “By decapitating the head of the snake,” the attack was a defining moment in the campaign against Al Qaeda, he said at the May 2 White House press conference. “We feel this is a very important time to continue… [and] to break the back of Al Qaeda,” he said. A key task, he said, is persuading Pakistanis that “Al Qaeda is now something in the past, not the future.”

The quick reaction will help Brennan, Clinton and their allies fend off calls from some liberals and conservatives for a reduced U.S. role in Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. The administration is slated to decide in June how many troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan during the summer.

“Continued [international] cooperation will be just as important in the days ahead [because] the battle to stop al Qaeda and its syndicate of terror will not end with the death of bin Laden,” Clinton declared. “We must take the opportunity to redouble our efforts … we will continue to take the fight to al Qaeda and its Taliban allies,” she said.

Throughout the Middle East, people are rejecting the “extremist narrative” of bin Laden, she said. “There is no better rebuke to al Qaeda and its heinous ideology” than the protests, she said.

Other advocates for continued military involvement also jumped into the emerging debate. Bin Laden’s killing was “the most significant achievement to date in our fight against al Qaeda and terrorism … However, we as a nation must understand that this is not the end of al Qaeda or terrorist efforts against the United States and her citizens,” according to a statement from New Jersey Democratic Rep. Steve Rothman.

The pending decision on troop levels in Afghanistan was set by President Barack Obama during his fall 2009 review of U.S. operations in Afghanistan. His decision, announced December 2009, was to dispatch another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, but also to begin withdrawing an unspecified number of troops beginning July 2011.

The most prominent opponent of the buildup was Vice President Joe Biden.

Watch Secretary Clinton’s remarks:

The Afghan decision will be considered while U.S. officials look at whether to keep a small number of U.S. combat forces in Iraq. Several politicians in Iraq have suggested they would support a continued U.S. troop presence that would help keep the neighboring Islamic government of Iran at bay. But other Iraqi politicians, including those with close ties to the Iranian theocracy, say a continued U.S. presence will inspire continued attacks on U.S. troops.

Many liberal groups want the U.S. role in Afghanistan reduced, partly to free up money for domestic spending, but also to extract the Democratic Party from painful war-related decisions. These decisions include rules for the treatment of captured terrorists, and for the monitoring of possible jihadis in the United States. These groups, including Code Pink, and legislators such as Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee, have won some support from-right-of-center advocates and writers, including columnist George Will, who wrote in September 2009 that Afghan leaders are incapable of establishing a modern government.

  • Pingback: Socialist Defense Is a Disaster | Lew Rockwell

  • loudog

    Someone should remind the State Department that we’re broke and can’t afford to rebuild backward civilizations anymore. To cut spending, slash the State Department and military budgets and stop trying to police the world, defend the US.