Hillary and Condoleezza express concerns over withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan

Two of the former US Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee they're worried about President Biden's plan to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan, with Rice suggesting the US may need to go back. 

The position puts two former Secretaries of State — one from the Obama and other from Bush administrations at odds with one of Biden's most significant foreign policy moves to date.

The new president has vowed to complete the withdrawal by 11th September 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attack. U.S. forces were sent to Afghanistan by Rice's then-boss, former President George W. Bush, to destroy havens used by the attack's organizers.

Clinton and Rice offered their reactions during a members-only Zoom call.

Rice's office did not want to comment on a private briefing. Clinton's spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

"We had Secretaries Clinton and Condi Rice Zoom with the committee," one committee member told. "A little disagreement on Afghanistan, but they both agreed we're going to need to sustain a counterterrorism mission somehow outside of that country."

“Condi Rice was like, you know, we’re probably going to have to go back, amid a potential surge in terrorism,” the member said.

Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas), the top Republican on the committee, told "With the potential for an Islamic State, coupled with what they're going to do to our contractors in Yemen and Afghanistan is, sadly, it's going to be tragic there and we all see it coming."

Another member of the committee confirmed both Clinton and Rice raised concerns about the potential fallout from a quick removal of all US troops.

Both also expressed concerns about protecting US diplomats on the ground following the withdrawal and what the move will mean for the global war on terrorism.

Both Rice and Clinton supported military intervention in the Middle East following the attacks on 11th September 2001.

Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser at the time, helped craft the administration's wartime response.

Then Senator Clinton — considered by many as a military hawk — voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to go to war, a vote she later said she regretted while on the presidential campaign trail.

Clinton also supported surging additional troops to Afghanistan in 2009.

Pakistan Succumbing to US Pressure

And finally Pakistan has opened Nato supply route, without demanding any transit fee on simple sorry by Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State.

In return Pakistan is likely to get US$1.1 billion due under Coalition Support Fund, which has been subject of wrangling between the two countries.

Pakistan’s claims often rejected and smaller sums approved by Washington for reimbursement. It is not a favor because the amount had been approved and already gone through the process and pertains to services rendered before closure of the supply route.

The announcement coming from the two governments suggest that the suspension of Nato supplies was not in the interest of Pakistan, which seem incorrect. In fact Nato had to incur almost three times the expense in using alternate routes. On top of all opening of route was necessary for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, expected to commence in 2014.

Most offending is one of the editorials published in The New York Times alleging that the military of the 'crippled and chaotic' state continues to play a double game of accepting aid from America while enabling the Afghan Taliban. It also said that Pakistan's political system is growing ‘ever more dysfunctional’.

Pakistanis fail to understand because on one hand says the US administration says it needs Pakistan’s help in reopening a critical supply route to Afghanistan and in urging the Taliban to engage in peace talks so that combat troops can be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and on the other hand Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says “reaching the limits of our patience.”

According to the editorial the US President, Barak Obama declined to hold an official meeting with President of Pakistan, Asif Zardari at the NATO summit meeting in Chicago in May. It also said The United States has little choice but to continue drone attacks on militants in Pakistan. It has urged India to become more involved in Afghanistan. Surprising was the phrase ‘Pakistan is paranoid about India’, which it sees as a mortal adversary.

Equally disturbing for Pakistan and United States should be the threats from Pakistani Taliban to attack Nato supply trucks and kill its drivers if they tried to resume supplies to troops in Afghanistan. Prior to the closure they have carried out dozens of attacks; disrupting supplies destined for Afghanistan, and have repeatedly warned of more if Pakistan reopened supply route.

Opening up of Nato route is likely to get fierce response from religious groups and politicians who have been demanding Pakistan should pull itself out of proxy US war in Afghanistan. Opponents of the present regime enjoy street power and if these demonstrations turn violent containing these would be difficult.