General Joe Dunford says U.S. troops will stay in Afghanistan long after 2014

Obama's choice for next commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General Joe Dunford, told the Senate on Thursday (Nov. 15) that he sees U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan long after 2014 when all U.S. troops are supposedly to depart.

Dunford told U.S. senators:

“In my view our overall objective in Afghanistan after 2014 will be to sustain our hard-won security gains after 2014 so that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists.

To accomplish this objective, the primary missions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan should be to (1) train, advise, and assist the ANSF; (2) provide support to civilian agencies, and (3) conduct counter-terrorism operations. This mission set will include force protection for our brave young men and women and, as available, the provision of in extremis support for our Afghan forces.”

As the enclosed video from a year ago shows, it was clear even back then that the U.S was not going to withdraw all troops after 2014. On July the 4th this year, a Strategic Partnership Agreement between Afghanistan and the U.S. came into force. The agreement was signed on May 4. The agreement set out a number of aspects of the continuing relationship between the U.S. and Afghanistan for up to a decade after 2014.

There were no specifics about how many U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan and exactly what their role would be. But among the provisions were:

Access to and use of Afghan facilities by US personnel beyond 2014

Granting the United States the possibility of keeping forces in Afghanistan after 2014 for purposes of training Afghan forces and targeting al-Qaida

Negotiations began Thursday (Nov.15) on a bilateral security agreement (BSA) meant to now determine the role of U.S. troops that remain in Afghanistan, their number, and the terms and conditions of their stay. The Afghan chief negotiator, Afghan Ambassador to the U.S. Eklil Hakimi said:

"The talks between the United States of America and Afghanistan on Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) formally began here in Kabul today,."

James Warlick, Deputy Special Representative of U.S. on Afghanistan and Pakistan, leads the U.S. team. He said:

"The documents to provide legal authorities for United States armed forces and our civilian components to continue presence in Afghanistan with the full approval of the government of Afghanistan."

We will not know for some time exactly how many troops will be staying or what exactly their role will be but it certainly will go beyond training to helping to fight the war on terror and that will no doubt include operations against the Taliban and perhaps operations against targets in Pakistan even though the Afghan government may object to that. During the election campaign,in debate, Biden said:

“We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we’re going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion We’ve been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we’re doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It’s their responsibility, not America’s.”

Biden should read the terms of the Strategic Partnership and while he is at it he might find out about the BSA negotiations that are ongoing now.

So far Karzai has maintained that any U.S. military personnel who stay in Afghanistan should be subject to prosecution in local courts. However, the U.S. has always taken the position that any crimes committed by U.S. troops must be tried in the U.S. Afghans were infuriated when Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, who allegedly killed 16 Afghans, was whisked off to the U.S. for trial. Failure to solve this issue in Iraq, resulted in most U.S. troops being withdrawn from Iraq when the Status of Forces agreement expired.

Karzai claims civilian deaths in NATO air strikes could undermine Strategic Partnership agreement

Just recently Obama paid a secret visit to Afghanistan to sign a Strategic Partnership Deal governing the U.S. continuing presence and support for Afghanistan from 2014 to 2024. Now Karzai claims that the deal is being undermined by recent NATO air strikes that have killed civilians.

This is probably simply political rhetoric that Karzai finds necessary in order to keep some semblance of legitimacy in the eyes of the public. There is an analogous situation in Pakistan where the parliament passes motions demanding drone strikes stop but they continue. However, Karzai is unpredictable and it is possible if pushed far enough he may feel forced to act.

Karzai said:“If the lives of Afghan people are not safe, the signing of the strategic partnership has no meaning,” Karzai again demanded that NATO stop air strikes in populated areas and bombing homes that might have civilians inside. NATO has refused to change course.

Afghanistan is an occupied country and the government and military are dependent upon foreign payments to function. Even after 2014 the Afghan government will require much over a billion a year to finance the military.

The Strategic Partnership deal does on paper give some control over night raids but only certain types of raids. This is no doubt meant to make it look as if Karzai has won concessions whereas in reality independent raids by the U.S. will continue as before the agreement . The NATO policy at present is unchanged with the inevitable collateral damage that follows. No doubt these raids help the Taliban recruit fighters. For more see this article.

Obama misleads on Afghan situation

    Obama has recently boasted that he is withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2014. While this is true of most combat troops it leaves out a great deal of important information. Under the Strategic  Partnership Agreement the U.S. will actually keep some troops in Afghanistan such as special forces, drone operators, and trainers for an entire decade. The U.S. will also help fund the Afghan military to the tune of a least a billion per year.
   Obama also claims that the Afghan security forces are well trained and ready to take over security. This is far from true. Only a small percentage of the forces are able to act independently. No doubt U.S. advisers will still be involved after 2014. One U.S. commander has said that only one per cent of Afghan forces are capable of acting independently. In an election year I suppose half truths and lies are part of the campaign. For more see this article.

New Agreement with Afghanistan would still allow U.S. led night raids and drone attacks on Pakistan.

   The wording of the new Strategic Partnership Agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan governing relations between the two countries after 2014 has deceptive wording. When deciphered in spite of what the Karzai government claims the U.S. could conduct its own night raids without Afghan supervision and also drone raids could be continued against Pakistan.
  For drone raids see this article.  The MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)  prohibits offensive drone raids against another country after 2014 when the agreement comes into effect. However this not prohibit offensive or defensive raids within Afghanistan. Defensive raids in Pakistan would also be allowed. All the U.S. need do is claim that the raids in Pakistan are defensive and hence continues the raids as it has up to now.
  For night raids see this article. The night raids covered under the MOU are just those reported by the U.S. to an Afghan co-ordination group. This allows the U.S. to still carry on independent night raids on its own. The practice has been to have more Afghan led raids and the agreement simply codifies the present practice and makes them subject to Afghan judicial oversight. For much more detail see this article.

Juan Cole on Obama's Afghan visit and policies

At his blog Juan Cole has a long entry on Obama's visit to Afghanistan and his policy in Afghanistan. As Cole remarks Obama had to enter secretly at night because of the security situation in Kabul. Almost as soon as he left there was a suicide attack.

The Strategic Partnership Agreement Cole claims is an executive order rather than a treaty. The agreement went neither to the U.S. congress nor to the Afghan parliament. Many press reports simply ignore this. The Afghan people have nothing to say through their parliament about the agreement. The American people have nothing to say through congrees about the billions of taxpayer dollars they commit to Afghanistan's defense after 2014. No doubt the agreement would pass with bipartisan support in the U.S. congress in spite of the U.S. debt and public distaste for the war but in the Afghan congress it might be different.

Cole points out that the document says that Afghanistan is committed to advancing democracy. However, the presidential election in Afghanistan and other elections were flawed. Also, this agreement itself is not treated democratically but as an executive order.

While the document promises that the U.S. will have no permanent bases in Afghanistan as Cole notes U.S. troops will be staying for at least another decade and even more under the agreement so the issue can be postponed for a decade or more while U.S. has access to Afghan bases as well. Special forces will remain to fight the Taliban. Most significantly there is a commitment to pay billions to keep the Afghan armed forces afloat..The U.S. is no doubt anxious to get NATO members to share this burden but this may be an uphill battle.

Cole concentrates on four failed aspects of Obama's Afghan strategy: 1) Trying to get someone more appropriate as president than Hamid Karzai. It has not worked. The U.S. is stuck with him so far. 2) Carrying out a counter-insurgency struggle to win the hearts and minds of Afghans and defeat the Taliban. While there may have been some local successes overall the struggle has been far from successful. 3) Training and equipping an Afghan National Army and police. This aim too is far from a success. Only one unit of the Army has been assessed as being able to operate independently. Of course it is also infiltrated by the Taliban at times. 4) Use drone strikes against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Cole says this tactic has produced tremendous blowback and is probably counter productive. For the much more see the full article.

Strategic Partnership Agreement may keep U.S. in Afghanistan for years to come

 

You will notice buried in accounts of the recent killings of civilians in the Kandahar area a sentence or so about the Strategic Partnership Agreement. Talks have been going on for a long time. In fact a long article on the talks can be found dated June 13 2011 in the Guardian here


The U.S. is supposed to turn over security to Afghans in 2014 but that does not mean all U.S. troops will leave. There will be special forces remaining and trainers who may very well fight alongside Afghan security forces. The Strategic Partnership Agreement talks have been going on behind the scenes in secret with no attention being paid by the press or the public. The talk is all as if in 2014 it will be all over and the Afghans will look after themselves.

The problem with the recent rampage in the Kandahar area is that it may make it difficult for Karzai and the U.S. to complete negotiations. Karzai will probably demand that there be no special forces night raids. Now he may very well demand that any remaining U.S. forces be subject to Afghan law. That is a complete no no for the U.S. This is what kept Obama from reaching any agreement to keep troops in Iraq after the SOFA there expired. However the U.S. is working around that by hiring private contractors for security and other measures. No doubt the U.S. is facing the same issue in Afghanistan as it attempts to agree to terms of its presence after 2014. Of course the public is never informed about what is transpiring in these talks.