Iraq 2.0?

This week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. mission in Afghanistan was not to rebuild the country, but rather to defeat our enemies, and give the Afghan people the tools to rule themselves. While this may seem like a good goal, and one we should should stick to, it feels to me a little too much like what were doing in Iraq. Our current goal in Iraq is to set up a government for the Iraqi people so that they can rule themselves, without having to rely on foreign aid or a cruel ruler. However, the constant conflict in Iraq between different people in the country has meant that we have been in the country much longer than we should be. It seems that unless the U.S. is very careful, it could end up fighting a long and expensive campaign in Afghanistan, similar to what it did in Iraq.

Clinton did say that "We believe that President [Hamid] Karzai and his government can do better," and that "our primary focus is on the security of the United States of America," but is it realistic to believe that the U.S. will be willing to step out of the country as soon as they take down Al Qaeda? In addition, Clinton was quick to point out things that the Karzai government needed to improve on.  In the end, will Obama and the rest of the government be willing to step out of Afghanistan without rebuilding it in some form, like they did in Iraq?