Secretary Clinton said today that she and the U.S. government support reintegration and reconciliation with Taliban members who meet specific criteria. We are "willing to support what's called reintegration -- namely, people on the battlefield coming off and going back into their society -- and reconciliation, which is a much more political process to work out terms of peace with people who [have] led the Taliban, but only on very clear conditions," she told ABC's Robin Roberts during an interview in Brussels, where she attended a NATO ministerial meeting.

Those "clear conditions" are: 

• Renouncing violence and laying down arms.
• Renouncing al Qaeda.
• Abiding by Afghan laws and the Afghan Constitution.

Clinton was cautious with her remarks and said she's unsure how many Taliban leaders would agree to these conditions. In fact she said, "I think it's highly unlikely that the leadership of the Taliban that refused to turn over bin Laden in 2001 will ever reconcile. But stranger things have happened in the history of war, but it can only happen if they [are] willing to abide by the red lines that we and the Afghan government have established."

Other the other hand, Clinton sounded somewhat optimistic about lower-level Taliban members who likely joined in the first place just to get a paycheck. "I am increasingly convinced that many of the lower-level Taliban, young men who frankly went to fight for the Taliban because they got paid more than they could make anywhere else -- I believe that they are, in increasing numbers, laying down their arms and coming back into society."

She also told Roberts, "What we are seeing is a move by the lower-level fighters, many of them, to leave the battlefield, which is all to the good because they are being convinced that this fight is no longer one they want to be part of."

Anything about the Taliban joining peace talks or becoming part of the Afghan government will make most Americans nervous. Anyone can pay mere lip service to meeting the three "red line" conditions listed above; how do you tell whether someone isn't surreptitiously supporting violence and al Qaeda on the side? I also wish Clinton had reiterated that no political reconciliation should come at the price of Afghanistan's women -- which is one of the scariest things about involving the Taliban in peace talks and the government. Back in July during her visit to Kabul, Clinton made it starkly clear that Afghan women can't be marginalized in the reconciliation process, saying:

I don't think there is such a political solution that would be a lasting, sustainable one that would turn the clock back on women. That is a recipe for a return to the kind of Afghanistan -- if not in the entire country, in significant parts of the country -- that would once again be a breeding ground for terrorism. So we've got our red lines, and they are very clear: Any reconciliation process that the United States supports, recognizing that this is an Afghan-led process, must require that anyone who wishes to rejoin society and the political system must lay down their weapons and end violence, renounce al Qaeda, and be committed to the Constitution and laws of Afghanistan, which guarantee the rights of women.

Below is an edited video of today's interview:

Aisha, the 19-year-old Afghan whose nose and ears were hacked off by her husband and who appeared on the cover to Time magazine this summer, has a new prosthetic nose!

With her new look, she attended the Grossman Burn Foundation's benefit event in California on Oct. 8 and received an Enduring Heart award from Maria Shriver, wife of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. "This is the first Enduring Heart award given to a woman whose heart endures and who shows us all what it means to have love and to be the enduring heart," Shriver said.

The Grossman Burn Foundation paid for Aisha's surgery in California, and plastic surgeon Peter H. Grossman, co-director of the Grossman Burn Centers, is hoping that a "permanent solution" can be found, perhaps reconstructing Aisha's nose and ears from bone, cartilage, and tissue from other parts of her body, reports the Daily Telegraph. Now, Aisha is beginning a new life in the United States. What a brave young woman.

Update, 4:13 p.m.: The brutality inflicted on women like Aisha shows us why Secretary Clinton is so adamant that absolutely no political reconciliation in Afghanistan should come at the price of Afghan women's well-being. As she said in July in Kabul:

I don't think there is such a political solution that would be a lasting, sustainable one that would turn the clock back on women. That is a recipe for a return to the kind of Afghanistan -- if not in the entire country, in significant parts of the country -- that would once again be a breeding ground for terrorism.

Here is a CNN video about Aisha, whose surname has not been disclosed, and her new look:

In two moving video messages released by the Ad Council today, Secretary Clinton appeals to her fellow Americans to donate to flood relief in Pakistan through the Pakistan Relief Fund, set up by the U.S. government through the State Department. With poignant music playing in the background, Clinton says, "Americans have always shown great generosity to others facing crises around the world. And I call on you to do what you can."

Just text "FLOOD" to 27722 to contribute $10. (You can also donate online or via postal mail by clicking here.)

Donations to help with flood relief have been dismally low compared with those after other natural disasters, such as the Jan. 12 Haiti earthquake. A recent FP piece, "Why Doesn't the World Care About Pakistanis?", states the simple truth: People don't care because the victims are in the country of Pakistan. In other words, "the humanity of Pakistan's victims takes a backseat to the preconceived image that Westerners have of Pakistan as a country." The piece concludes:

Pakistan has suffered from desperately poor moral leadership, but punishing the helpless and homeless millions of the 2010 floods is the worst possible way to express our rejection of the Pakistani elite and their duplicity and corruption. The poor, hungry, and homeless are not an ISI conspiracy to bilk you of your cash. They are a test of your humanity. Do not follow in the footsteps of the Pakistani elite by failing them. That would be immoral and inhumane. This is a time to ask only one question. And that question is: "How can I help?"

Below is the first video, which is 30 seconds long, followed by the second one, which is 60 seconds long.

(By the way, does the photo above remind you of Dorothea Lange's famous Migrant Mother photo from the Great Depression?)

Secretary Clinton congratulates Pakistan on the 63rd anniversary of its independence in 1947. Unfortunately due to the massive flooding, the day isn't as joyous as it could be; Independence Day celebrations have been canceled. Here's her statement, with video below:

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States of America, I am delighted to send best wishes and congratulations to the people of Pakistan as you mark 63 years of independence.

Fatimah Jinnah once said that the story of Pakistan is a story of "the ideals of equality, fraternity, and social and economic justice." Since gaining independence in 1947, the people of Pakistan have been writing that story, one day at a time. Together, you have overcome significant challenges. In just the past few weeks, Pakistanis and partners from many countries have worked to protect people and homes from the floods that swept through so many areas. The damage is serious, but I know Pakistan will rebuild.

And the Pakistani people will continue to write the story that began 63 years ago. As you do, please know that the people of the United States are committed to standing by you. We admire what you have accomplished since Independence. And we seek to support you as you build upon the ideals that inspired your nation from the start.

So on this occasion, let us reaffirm the partnership our nations share, the strong bonds that connect our people-bonds of family, friendship, history, and common purpose. And let us recommit to making the founding ideals of Pakistan - ideals of equality, fraternity, and social and economic justice - making them real. They helped give rise to Pakistan's creation, they stand today as goals that we all hold dear, and they provide encouragement as you continue to build a strong, prosperous, progressive, stable, secure nation for the future. Here's to the democracy of Pakistan and to the people who deserve all that you can build together, knowing that we and others will be there with you on this journey. 

(In the photo above, Clinton poses with Pakistan's flag in Islamabad on Oct. 28, 2009.)

FP blogger David Rothkopf has written an impassioned post, "Women and Islam: The real test of our values," in which he states that the way women are treated in many Islamic countries is "a disgrace every bit as grand and incomprehensible and awful as the Holocaust -- only it is much bigger, much more ancient, and if possible, much more evil if only due to the extent of its reach and the breadth of our acceptance of what has happened."

Just as I did last week, he mentions that Secretary Clinton "argues we will not forget the women of Afghanistan -- that they are one of the reasons we are there." When it comes to the rights of women and girls, he states, "No one has been more tireless or vocal in pursuit of these goals than Clinton." Which makes me wonder: In what ways would the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan be different if Clinton had been elected president?

On International Women's Day this March, Secretary Clinton said:

Investing in the potential of the world's women and girls is one of the surest ways to achieve global economic progress, political stability, and greater prosperity for women -- and men -- the world over.

When you educate girls and women, you change attitudes and increase women's earning power. And when women have a broader view of the world and increased earning power, that changes the internal dynamics of a household, and across many households, that can change a society.

That's why Clinton would be impressed with A Girl Story, the world's first donation-based film series. The animated 11-part film, launched by Nanhi Kali, a nonprofit that helps underprivileged girls in India get an education, follows a fictional Indian girl named Tarla. When I first learned about the short film in late June, I could only view the first few parts, which showed Tarla dreaming about going to school, but being unable to attend. Her big brownish-plum cartoon eyes welled with blue tears, as seen above in the clip from chapter 2.

For the film to advance and show Tarla realizing her dream to attend school, viewers must make a donation. The idea is that it's up to the viewers whether Tarla gets to go to school, or not.

Yesterday I checked out the film, and I was heartened to see that it had advanced to the sixth part of the series, with the story progressing to show Tarla receiving a book and a school bag, but still not making it through the schoolhouse door. But then the film halted, and Tarla told us that to "unlock my next chapter," we must contribute $844 more. (Nanhi Kali's website says it costs just 1,800 Indian rupees -- about $39 -- to send a girl to school for a year for grades 1 to 7, and 2,500 rupees -- or $54 -- for grades 8 to 10.)

Nanhi Kali -- which means "Little Bud" in Hindi -- presently supports the education of more than 58,000 girls in India, but hopes to grow that number. It was founded in 1996 by the Mahindra Education Trust in India, which is registered in the United States as the Mahindra Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. So check out the film, and if you're like what you see, consider making a donation to the foundation.

Last month, Secretary Clinton commended the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for its $1.5 billion contribution toward women's and children's health, saying, "Focusing on women is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do, because investing in the health of women also improves the health of their families and communities."

I expect Clinton would thus be intrigued by a program in India that aims to reduce maternal morality by providing $30 cash incentives to poor women to give birth in hospitals, and not on the dirt floors of thatched-roof homes.

Why would any woman need to essentially be paid to give birth at a hospital, where the chances of death are much lower? Turns out, getting to a hospital is not so easy, for a variety of reasons. Last week's Washington Post article about the program mentions one rural woman for whom it would cost $4 to take a taxi to the hospital -- a long of money in a poor farming community where the $30 incentive is about three weeks of a family's pay. 

The hurdles aren't just economic, but also related to education, class divisions, and patriarchy. The articles says lack of education means a lot of people don't fully appreciate that medical care in a hospital setting can mean the difference between a happy, healthy mom -- and a dead one.

Also, in a society with sharp caste and class divisions, many poor, illiterate mothers-to-be don't have the assertiveness to set foot in the hospital, according to the article. Perhaps if you're from a marginalized, look-down-upon caste or social class, going to a relatively modern and clean hospital can be intimidating. One woman told the Post, "Before this [program], we didn't have a hint of what to do.… The hospital was very confusing. We weren't sure who to talk to or what we needed."  Another woman in the article said she was scared to go to the hospital.

The article also mentioned the patriarchal culture, stating that in rural India, many poor husbands don't let their pregnant wives to go to the hospital.

But money talks -- including in Indian languages. In Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, two of India's poorest states, the percentage of women delivering in medical facilities more than doubled from less than 20 percent in 2005 to almost 50 percent in 2008. Physicians say that's due to the incentive program.

India still has a long way to go on maternal mortality -- its rate of maternal mortality is around 10 times China's rate. Women's education and economic development are the long-term fix to the problem, but until then, it's the lure of $30.

In Islamabad today, Secretary Clinton announced a whole slew of development projects for Pakistan: hydroelectric dams, refurbishment of municipal water-supply systems, hospital renovations, agricultural projects, etc. In the photo above, she points to a map marking the location of many projects, while Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi looks on.

The projects are being funded through the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation passed in the United States last year that provides $7.5 billion over five years to fix Pakistan's infrastructure and promote its economic develpment. The U.S. government is trying to dispel the distrust that many Pakistanis have toward the United States, and Clinton was trying to make it clear that the development aid is for helping Pakistan itself and is not just for advancing U.S. security interests. At the news conference with Qureshi, as seen in the photo above, Clinton said:

"There's a legacy of suspicion that we inherited.… It's not going to be eliminated overnight. But it's our goal to slowly but surely demonstrate that the U.S. is concerned about Pakistan for the long term, and that the partnership goes far beyond security against our common enemies."

She also said:

"We are committed to building a partnership with Pakistan that of course strengthens security and protects the people of Pakistan, but goes far beyond security."

It seems pretty naive to think this aid package isn't primarily about security. Regardless of intent, however, will it win Pakistani hearts and minds? Methinks not. As of last October, when President Obama signed the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation, only 15 percent of Pakistanis surveyed supported it. Many think the aid money comes with too many strings attached and compromises Pakistan's sovereignty.

I wish Clinton good luck, though. With her star power, you never know.

The United States is "definitely committed to the consideration of India" on the U.N. Security Council, Secretary Clinton said yesterday in a news conference (seen above) after meeting with Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna as part of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue.

In her opening remarks to the dialogue, Clinton had said:

India's growing global role requires us to reassess institutions of global governance. India's rise will certainly be a factor in any future consideration of reform of the United Nations Security Council.

Later in the day, when Clinton and Krishna met with the media, a reporter from the Press Trust of India asked Clinton, "[Y]ou spoke about India's being an indispensable partner and trusted friend. So what is holding United States from endorsing India as a member of -- permanent member of -- the United Nations Security Council?"

After discussing other issues for a bit, Clinton answered:

"[W]e don't have any way forward yet on Security Council reform, but we are obviously very committed to considering India. At this point, as you probably know, there is no consensus in the world, and that is the challenge of dealing with multilateral organizations. I think as Minister Krishna said at another point in our meeting today, once you get to multilateral negotiations it slows down considerably. But we are definitely committed to the consideration of India."

Other notes about Clinton's big India day:

In her opening remarks, Clinton made some highly complimentary remarks about India:

We've said it many times, but it cannot be said too often: India is the world's largest democracy, its second-fastest growing economy, and a rising power, not only in Asia but globally. It has vibrant democratic institutions, a very free press, a robust civil society, and an innovative private sector. It is also a model of democratic development that is lifting millions of people out of poverty by widening access to tools of opportunity, such as education, health care, food, water, and jobs.

India's rise is a defining storyline of the early 21st century .

Clinton also called upon India to open its economy more, saying:

Together, we must reduce barriers to trade and investment going in both directions. And we urge India to reduce or ease caps on investment in critical sectors, which would help open markets and create millions of jobs in both countries.

She also expressed hope that India would pass legislation allowing foreign universities to open campuses in India, a topic addressed by Sudip Mazumdar in the recent FP piece, "Will There Be an Indian Harvard?" Clinton said:

[W]e hope that India will pass legislation now under review that would allow foreign universities to open campuses in India in accordance with appropriate regulations, of course. A number of U.S. institutions have expressed interest in opening Indian campuses and working with Indian scholars and students, whose talents are internationally renowned."

"We will not abandon the Afghan people. Our civilian commitment will remain long into the future," Secretary Clinton said this morning at the State Department in her opening remarks to U.S.-Afghan bilateral discussions. She also said, 'The ability to disagree on issues of importance to our respective countries and peoples is not an obstacle to achieving our shared objectives.… Rather, it reflects a level of trust that is essential to any meaningful dialogue and enduring strategic partnership."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, as seen above with Clinton, said the international forces in his country must do more to prevent civilian deaths, but also noted that Gen. Stanley Chrystal is the first foreign commander to personally apologize to him whenever a military operation ends up killing civilians.

There's a lot more of Karzai on Clinton's schedule today. At 3:30 p.m., she has a one-on-one meeting with him, and at 5 p.m. she will host a reception for him. She already hosted a dinner for him yesterday, as seen in the photo below, in which it's striking that she's the only woman. I wonder how that feels -- to be the only woman in so many of these gatherings.

When it comes to salvaging the strained U.S. relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Secretary Clinton is the best person for the job, according to Daily Beast writer and Hoover Institution research fellow Tunku Varadarajan. In his piece yesterday, "Bring on Hillary," he begins with "It's time to end the sleazy whispering campaign against Karzai -- and empower Hillary Clinton, America's best hope to salvage relations with Afghanistan" and concludes:

Of all those who make (or mar) U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, Hillary is the one who bears no blame for the recent bad blood with Karzai. She has a fine grasp of the difference between diplomacy and bluster, and shutting her out of much of the main AfPak action has been a major -- even calamitous -- mistake. […]

One clear change that could, and should, be made to the architecture of our AfPak diplomacy is to elevate Hillary above Holbrooke in the AfPak theater. The latter has had an opportunity to make an impact. The results have been dreadful. It is now time to hand the job -- the hardest in American diplomacy -- to the hard lady of American politics.

(In the photo above, then-Senator Clinton meets with Karzai on Jan. 14, 2007, in Kabul, Afghanistan.)

At 8 a.m. today, having returned to Washington from Mexico, Secretary Clinton hosted the opening session of the U.S.-Pakistan strategic dialogue, a two-day event during which nuclear energy, economic assistance for Pakistan, and security issues will be discussed. (Above, Clinton shakes hands with Pakistani Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi.)

The Pakistani delegation will probably ask for a civilian nuclear deal similar to the one the United States signed with India, Pakistan's archenemy, but a lot of people on Capitol Hill and in New Delhi aren't going to be thrilled about that idea. (For more on whether Pakistan should get a nuclear deal, check out the FP piece, "Should Pakistan Get a Nuke Deal?")

A few excerpts of Clinton's remarks, as reported by the Associated Press:

Clinton acknowledged that "misperceptions and mistrust" have grown between the two countries, and said that overcoming the mutual suspicion requires sustained work across several areas of government.

"This is a new day," she said.

and:

"You are fighting a war whose outcome is critical first and foremost, of course, for the people of Pakistan," Clinton told the foreign minister. "But it will also have regional and global repercussions, and so strengthening and advancing your security remains a key priority of our relationship."

With the troop withdrawal date of July 2011, Secretary Clinton said, the U.S. administration is sending a "message of urgency" to Afghans and their government to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda more effectively. She made the remark in an interview yesterday with CBS's Katie Couric. When asked by Couric, "Why start withdrawing U.S. troops just 18 months after the surge begins?", Clinton's response was:

Well, I think there's been considerable misunderstanding about what the president said and what he meant. He said [Tuesday] night that our goal is to begin transferring responsibility for security and hopefully being able to bring some of our troops home starting in July 2011. But this is going to be done in a responsible way and based on the conditions as they are assessed. And we want to send a message of urgency to the people and government of Afghanistan and others that they have to be part of making sure that we go after al Qaeda and their allies, which include a lot of the Afghanistan Taliban."

When Couric followed up by asking, "So is this a not-so-subtle message to Hamid Karzai that he better step up to the plate because the U.S. will not be there forever?", Clinton answered:

Well, I think that this is a very clear message to President Karzai and to the rest of the Afghan leadership [that] what has gone [on] before hasn't been as effective as it needed to be, and we want to have the Afghan attention focused in a way that will produce results."

But will establishing a date of July 2011 for the beginning of a U.S. troop withdrawal truly give the Afghan leadership a kick in the pants to get its act together? And even if it does try hard to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda, will it be able to succeed? Based on all the corruption and dysfunction in the Afghan government, it's hard to be optimistic, but for the sake of Afghans and the world's security, I hope Clinton is right and that the situation in Afghanistan will become more tolerable.

(More of Clinton's remarks about U.S. strategy in Afghanistan are available in her testimony yesterday for the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee.)

While speaking today at a news conference in Singapore (where, as seen above, she's attending the APEC summit), Secretary Clinton urged Burma to plan for "free, fair, and credible" elections in 2010. She also pointed out that it's in other countries' interests to have a stable Burma, saying, "Any country that does business in Burma wants to be sure that their investments and their business are safe, and the best way to ensure that is to move toward democracy and the kind of stability that democracy creates."

At a news conference today, Clinton also said yesterday's naval skirmish between North and South Korea will not not affect U.S. plans to send an envoy to North Korea to try to restart nuclear talks. Clinton said, "This does not in any way affect the decision to send Ambassador [Stephen] Bosworth. We think that this is an important step that stands on its own."

A couple of other Clinton tidbits:

•Clinton has been urging Iran to accept a U.N. proposal that lets the country ship low-enriched uranium abroad (to Russia and France) to be further enriched for a Tehran reactor that makes medical isotopes. She also stated on The Charlie Rose Show that, "It is not in Iran's interest to have a nuclear arms race in the Gulf, where they would be less secure than they are today. It is not in Iran's interest, to the Iranian people's interest, to be subjected to very onerous sanctions."

•Clinton was a star guest at Starbucks today, though she didn't order anything to drink. She sat for about 30 minutes at a table outside the Starbucks in Singapore's Suntec convention center. She was joined by U.S. Congressman Sander Levin (D-Mich.) while four diplomatic security agents monitored from a distance. Three of the four ordered lattes and cappuccinos. The manager said, "They came by very quietly. … Suddenly, this branch has become historic, an icon. I feel lucky."

Photo: ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images