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 »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
4 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×