Hillary muddies the water

Last week President Barack Obama, stopping at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska en-route to Asia, said he will not risk more American lives in Afghanistan "unless it is necessary to America's vital interests." That begs the question he has repeatedly asked his advisers in recent months: What are America's vital interests in Afghanistan, and how do we achieve them? His own answer to that question is overdue.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a partial answer on Sunday, saying, "We have no long-term stake" in Afghanistan. "Our goal here is to defeat al-Qaida. We want that to be made very clear." But some administration officials have said al-Qaida has only a few score men in Afghanistan. If so, why do we need U.S. troops there?

Her answer referred to President Obama's March 27 remarks "announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." In it he said, "I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future." He added that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would lead to "the return in force of al-Qaida."

The formula for success Mr. Obama set forth in March required American and NATO troops to halt and reverse Taliban gains in Afghanistan and hold the Taliban at bay until Afghan security forces are able to take over. The concept, including the gradual transfer of responsibility to local forces, owed much to the "surge" strategy followed in Iraq.

The difficulty with the shorthand version of the Obama strategy given by Mrs. Clinton is that it glosses over the enormous challenges of securing Afghanistan against the Taliban while Afghan security forces are being built up, and also over the likelihood that it could take five years to reach a point where American and other NATO combat forces are not required.

It is easy to understand that failure in Afghanistan could lead to chaos and a wider war in South Asia. It is much harder to know what it will cost to prevent failure. There can be no question that the nation's long-term vital interests are involved, Mrs. Clinton's remarks notwithstanding.

Perhaps the president ultimately will explain.