Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

Cliffs and Shock-Absorbency; New Afghanistan Language Confronts New Political Realities Cliffs and Shock-Absorbency; New Afghanistan Language Confronts New Po...

This ad will end in seconds
Close X

Want access to this content? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation



Cliffs and Shock-Absorbency; New Afghanistan Language Confronts New Political Realities


Afghans burn an effigy depicting U.S. President Barack Obama following Sunday's killing of civilians in Panjwai, Kandahar by a U.S. soldier during a protest in Jalalabad east of Kabul, Afghanistan, Tuesday, March 13, 2012. Hundreds of students in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday shouted angry slogans against the United States and the American soldier accused of carrying out the killings, the first significant protest in response to the tragedy. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)


Gen. John Allen, commander of all US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said on Monday that’s what defines the relationship between western forces and Afghanistan’s fragile government, semi-trained military and war-weary populace.


Those shocks will be tested as never before in the aftermath of what the U.S. military calls a rogue soldier’s armed assault on Afghan civilians – primarily women and children – in the Panjwai District of Kandahar that left 16 dead and several wounded. The Taliban has called for revenge.

“Yes, this is a setback,” Allen said on CNN. “Yes, this is a tragedy. But we’re going to push on. We’re going to ensure that this relationship, which is resilient and possesses a lot of shock-absorbency…is the one that defines the success of our campaign.”

Allen, in Washington for a series of Pentagon meetings, amplified White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s earlier declaration that the as-yet-unnamed sergeant’s rampage will not alter the existing timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals.


“This relationship is too deep, it has been going on too long, we have all sacrificed too much for us to permit this to be the single event that unhorses this relationship,” Allen said. “The campaign is sound, it is solid. It does not contemplate, at this time, any form of accelerated drawdown.”

For his part, Obama said the shocking and savage attack underscores “the importance of us transitioning in accordance with my plan so that Afghans are taking more of the lead for their own security and we can start getting our troops home.” In an interview with ABC affiliate WFTV in Orlando, Obama said the U.S. and NATO will “keep an eye on going after al-Qaida” for the next couple of years.

Roughly 91,000 U.S. forces remain in Afghanistan. NATO forces number at least 31,000. The first 10,000 Afghanistan surge forces have already left and Allen said another 23,000 will depart by the end of September. The mission remains a tricky and hard-to-measure one of maintain security and training the Afghan army and police.

It’s a goal that retains support in Congress, but splinters within that solid support are likely to emerge.


“It might prompt discussion of an accelerated drawdown,” Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., told National Journal, noting that Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has called for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Rick Santorum now says the war has begun to “unravel” but blames Obama’s 2014 timeline for withdrawal – a timetable negotiated with NATO in 2010.  

Reed said the left wing of the Democratic Party has always favored a faster withdrawal but has left Obama’s policy largely unchallenged. Republicans, he said, may press for a re-think of current strategy.

“But the best pace of withdrawal is dictated by the facts on the ground,” Reed said. "What’s sobering is what the commanders on the ground are saying. There must be continued collaboration to shift the burden of security to Afghan forces. We can give them the tools to do the job. Whether they succeed, will be a test of their commitment more so than ours.”

Reed, who has visited Afghanistan 12 times, supports Obama’s withdrawal time-table of pulling most U.S. forces out by the end of 2014 – a timetable criticized by many Republicans when Obama announced it in December of 2009 (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said troop movements should be determined by “conditions, not timetables.”)

Reed acknowledged there could soon be calls from the left and the right to speed up U.S. troop withdrawals.

“You’ve got all these issues in terms of the strategy,” Reed said.

With the exception of three congressmen -- Ron Paul of Texas (still in the GOP presidential derby), Walter Jones of North Carolina, and Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee – House Republican support for staying in Afghanistan appears to be strong. In the Senate, two Republican tea party senators – Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah – joined 21 Democrats and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont to ask Obama to accelerate U.S. troop withdrawals. The letter was sent to Obama on March 7. Paul and Lee were the only Republicans to sign the letter.

Near-solid GOP support for current Afghanistan policy may be shifting, however. Senior congressional Republicans say an under-the-radar shift is underway in GOP thinking about Afghanistan, one where the strategic interests of the U.S. are being weighed against other more pressing concerns, namely Iran and China.



comments powered by Disqus