Obama Intel Chief: Karzai Won’t Sign Afghan Troop Agreement

The administration is looking to Karzai’s successor to finish the pact.

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 29: A member of CodePink protests as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (C) takes his seat prior to a hearing before the House (Select) Intelligence Committee October 29, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing on "Potential Changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)." 
Getty Images
Sara Sorcher
Feb. 11, 2014, 6:31 a.m.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4725) }}

Afghan Pres­id­ent Ham­id Kar­zai is not go­ing to sign a se­cur­ity pact to al­low U.S. troops to stay in the coun­try past the end of this year, In­tel­li­gence chief James Clap­per told the Sen­ate on Tues­day.

In­stead, it ap­pears the U.S. will have to wait for his suc­cessor.

Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Carl Lev­in — a Michigan Demo­crat who wants to wait to sign the agree­ment un­til Kar­zai’s re­place­ment is elec­ted this spring — asked dur­ing a com­mit­tee hear­ing, “Wouldn’t it just clear the air to say we’re go­ing to wait for the next pres­id­ent?”

“Ob­vi­ously, it takes two to sign it,” Clap­per replied. “It may not be com­pany policy,” Clap­per said, but on a per­son­al level, “I don’t be­lieve Pres­id­ent Kar­zai is go­ing to sign it.”

Clap­per’s com­ments come as news breaks that the U.S. mil­it­ary is re­vis­ing its plans to with­draw troops from Afgh­anistan un­til after Kar­zai leaves of­fice — a re­flec­tion of a need to be prag­mat­ic as hopes wane to fi­nal­ize an agree­ment.

After more than a year of tough ne­go­ti­ations over the post-2014 part­ner­ship between the U.S. and Afgh­anistan, Kar­zai has backed away since late last year from sign­ing the much-an­ti­cip­ated se­cur­ity pact — even after a con­ven­tion of Afgh­anistan’s 2,500 tri­bal eld­ers gave their ap­prov­al. The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has been push­ing Kar­zai to sign the agree­ment, since it will al­low them cru­cial time to plan to either leave a con­tin­gent of U.S. troops, or re­move them from the coun­try al­to­geth­er.

The U.S. mil­it­ary on Tues­day also con­demned the Afghan gov­ern­ment for plan­ning to free 65 de­tain­ees it be­lieves are dan­ger­ous and pose a ser­i­ous threat to the lives of co­ali­tion and loc­al Afghan troops. “Ac­tions like this make it very hard for an Amer­ic­an politi­cian to do busi­ness as usu­al in Afgh­anistan,” Sen. John Mc­Cain said.

Mean­while, as the U.S. pre­pares to end its com­bat op­er­a­tions, De­fense In­tel­li­gence Agency Dir­ect­or Mi­chael Flynn said the loc­al Afghan forces are hav­ing trouble hold­ing areas that have been cleared of mil­it­ants. The Afghan se­cur­ity forces, Flynn said, have shown mod­est pro­gress in their abil­ity to clear in­sur­gents from con­tested areas, and are plan­ning and con­duct­ing se­cur­ity op­er­a­tions.

But the lack of a bind­ing, longterm agree­ment pro­vokes con­fu­sion among the loc­al forces, Flynn said. “I think there’s great un­cer­tainty in their minds, be­cause of the lack of sign­ing of the [Bi­lat­er­al Se­cur­ity Agree­ment], to be very can­did.”

The troops also suf­fer be­cause of the lack of in­tel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance, and re­con­nais­sance cap­ab­il­it­ies, and tech­no­logy for coun­ter­ing im­pro­vised ex­plos­ive devices, oth­er­wise known as road­side bombs, Flynn said. Pres­id­en­tial elec­tions this Spring could also bring up­heav­al. “The lack of a con­sensus can­did­ate could lead to a po­ten­tially destabil­iz­ing run­off elec­tion, that would oc­cur dur­ing the peak of the in­sur­gent fight­ing sea­son and ISAF’s draw­down.”

What We're Following See More »
Inside the AP’s Election Operation
4 hours ago
What’s the Average Household Income of a Trump Voter?
4 hours ago

Seventy-two thousand dollars, according to FiveThirtyEight. That's higher than the national average, as well as the average Clinton or Sanders voter, but lower than the average Kasich voter.

How Coal Country Went from Blue to Red
6 hours ago
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
9 hours ago

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
9 hours ago

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."