In response to a question whether there is a conflict between American values and interests, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said, inter alia: "There was consensus in our foreign policy establishment that we are going to do whatever we could to help the Mujahideen drive out the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. It was a bipartisan commitment... that it was right thing to do and it contributed significantly to the eventual, not only withdrawal of Soviet Union from Afghanistan, but the internal problems that exacerbated the tensions within the Soviet Union that led to its collapse.
In hindsight, we often say to ourselves OK that was what we viewed as our interest and we did it. And we made another decision...so we withdrew. And the vacuum that was filled in by the Taliban, the warlords, etcetera, the safe haven for al Qaeda and all the rest is something that now people say to me. They say, well: `Did we make a mistake in the 1980s and should we not have done what we did with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan?' But it's one of the questions that are unanswerable because we made the decision at the time based on our analysis of those circumstances where we fell short, which is often the case... .So all these questions we are constantly asking ourselves and trying to get the best possible answer to."
Speaking to Charlie Rose, the celebrated American broadcaster at his special edition "Conversations on Diplomacy" (an inspiration from Harry Kreisler of UC Berkeley's "Conversations with History" programme?), in front of an audience at the State Department, she describes the US response to the events of North Africa and the Middle East as "it's like playing a multi-dimensional chess of an unprecedented scope" after former secretary of state Henry Kissinger argues that in the case of "some countries" in the Arab world the US has a national interest "in the outcome of these conflicts".
According to him, the Obama administration has to do it in "such a way that we don't tilt the strategic conflict in a direction that is unfavorable to us".
"And that is exactly right," remarks Clinton, adding: "We see Iran as a major threat to the region. And nothing that has happened in the Arab awakening in anyway diminishes that threat in the short term. In fact, we see Iran's trying to take advantage of what's going on, which is height of hypocrisy. But that has never stopped the regime before. And what they are doing is trying to somehow connect their failed revolution of 1979 with the movements for aspiration and change that are sweeping the region. So we have a lot of good friends in this region...we may not agree on every issue when it comes to politics or economics by any means. But you know they are good friends of US. They have been for decades. And what we're saying both publicly and privately is don't do anything that gives any ammunition, so to speak, to the Iranians because we don't want the Iranians to be given one iota of credit for what is a non-Iranian phenomenon. It's an Egyptian phenomenon, a Tunisian phenomenon, a Libyan phenomenon...."
"What ought to be done if our interest is regime change [in Libya]?" Kissinger's reply to Charlie's question: "I think that whatever one's view about the wisdom of engaging in military action there, once we are involved, it's better if the Qadhafi regime is removed because I don't think any constructive resolution is now possible as long as he's there. And, therefore, on the whole, I would favor the scale of effort that is needed to bring that about. But if that isn't possible then some political solution should be sought. What I don't like is an open-ended situation which is a daily irritant of fluctuating second-level military operations. So one or the other should be achieved." According to him, the present situation is "Scene One of Act One of Five-Act drama, which will develop over a considerable period of time and in which we will have to determine our interests."