7 Things to Know About the U.S.’s Future in Afghanistan

For one: The U.S. is planning to bring home the troops, but not all of them.

US Army soldiers attached to the 2nd platoon, C-Coy. 1-23 Infantry walk in line behind a designated mine-detecting device operator at Naja-bien village, notorious for IED caused injuries and deaths, in Panjwai district during a morning operation to find and destroy bomb traps made from IED's on September 23, 2012.
National Journal
Sara Sorcher
Add to Briefcase
Sara Sorcher
March 13, 2014, 1 a.m.

Amer­ic­an com­bat op­er­a­tions in Afgh­anistan of­fi­cially con­clude at year’s end, but does that mean the war is totally over and all the troops are com­ing home?

Not ex­actly.

The post-2014 U.S. role in Afgh­anistan is out­lined by a se­cur­ity agree­ment. Wash­ing­ton has all but aban­doned hope that Afghan Pres­id­ent Ham­id Kar­zai will sign the pact, but poli­cy­makers are still count­ing on Kar­zai’s suc­cessor to sign the agree­ment — which could al­low some U.S. troops to stay in the coun­try — after Afghan elec­tions in April.

Gen. Joseph Dun­ford, who com­mands the U.S.-led co­ali­tion in Afgh­anistan, test­i­fied be­fore the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee on Wed­nes­day — and will be back on Cap­it­ol Hill Thursday morn­ing — in part to out­line what war will look like after “the war” is over. Here are the key points:

1. How many U.S. troops will stay in the coun­try?

The Pentagon ex­pects any­where from 8,000 to 12,000 NATO forces to re­main in Afgh­anistan past the end of the year. Amer­ic­an troops would com­prise about two-thirds of this fol­low-on force. A few thou­sand more U.S. troops — likely spe­cial op­er­a­tions forces — could be join­ing them to con­duct coun­terter­ror­ism op­er­a­tions.

2. What would these troops be do­ing?

The U.S. and NATO force would train, ad­vise, and as­sist the loc­al Afghan forces. Those forces are grow­ing more ad­ept at lead­ing se­cur­ity op­er­a­tions, but they still need in­ter­na­tion­al help to be­come a func­tion­ing mod­ern army and po­lice force, Dun­ford said.

By 2015, the Afghan Air Force won’t be fully de­veloped. The in­tel­li­gence en­ter­prise won’t be fully func­tion­ing. The mil­it­ary’s spe­cial op­er­a­tions cap­ab­il­it­ies will be lack­ing. The se­cur­ity min­is­tries, Dun­ford ad­ded, need as­sist­ance “in tasks such as plan­ning, pro­gram­ming, budget­ing, ac­quis­i­tion, and hu­man re­source man­age­ment so they can provide tac­tic­al units the sup­port they re­quire to func­tion.”

The Afghan forces “will clearly be in the lead in the fight,” Dun­ford said. “The only op­er­a­tions that I would en­vi­sion us con­duct­ing in 2015 against an en­emy would be coun­terter­ror­ism op­er­a­tions.”

3. How long would the U.S. and NATO troops stay?

That’s un­clear. The se­cur­ity agree­ment ori­gin­ally ne­go­ti­ated between Ka­bul and Wash­ing­ton would last un­til the end of 2024 and bey­ond. Still, Kar­zai’s still-un­known suc­cessor might not keep that agree­ment as writ­ten, and in­ter­na­tion­al troops might not stay that en­tire time any­way. Dun­ford de­murred on an­swer­ing this “com­plic­ated” ques­tion at the hear­ing.

4. Are the Afghan forces ready for this trans­ition?

Dun­ford, for his part, has faith in their abil­it­ies. “After watch­ing the Afghan forces re­spond to a vari­ety of chal­lenges since they took the lead [in se­cur­ity op­er­a­tions] in June, I don’t be­lieve the Taliban in­sur­gency rep­res­ents an ex­ist­en­tial threat to the gov­ern­ment of Afgh­anistan or to the Afghan se­cur­ity forces,” he said. “I’m also con­fid­ent that they can se­cure the up­com­ing pres­id­en­tial elec­tion and the na­tion’s first demo­crat­ic trans­fer of power.”

But there are some reas­ons to doubt the Afghan forces. There were 14 “green-on-blue” at­tacks last year — that is, Afghan policy or mil­it­ary forces at­tack­ing co­ali­tion part­ners. That’s few­er than the 48 in­cid­ents the year be­fore, but, as Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Vir­gin­ia Demo­crat, put it, “it’s un­be­liev­able.” At the com­mit­tee hear­ing, Manchin de­scribed meet­ing a young man wounded in com­bat. “His story, it tore me apart. [The man] said, ‘I was shot, and I was shot by the per­son I trained for six months,’ ” Manchin said.

The De­fense In­tel­li­gence Agency has also ex­pressed con­cerns about Afgh­anistan’s se­cur­ity forces as the U.S. phases out its mis­sion. The loc­al army and po­lice “have shown pro­gress in their abil­ity to clear in­sur­gents from con­tested areas but have ex­hib­ited prob­lems hold­ing cleared areas long-term,” Army Lt. Gen. Mi­chael Flynn said in pre­pared testi­mony earli­er this month. They “struggle due to the lack of in­tel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance and re­con­nais­sance,” and the ca­pa­city to com­bat road­side bombs.

5. With Kar­zai’s re­fus­al to sign the pact, how likely is it that U.S. troops will stay?

Pretty likely, des­pite Kar­zai’s un­ex­pec­ted course change after more than a year of ne­go­ti­ations with the U.S. on the se­cur­ity agree­ment. The Afghan people ap­pear to be in fa­vor of a last­ing agree­ment with the U.S., and every Afghan pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate so far has in­dic­ated they would be will­ing to sign it. “Any of them would likely be a more re­li­able part­ner than Pres­id­ent Kar­zai,” Dun­ford test­i­fied.

Still, without a new se­cur­ity agree­ment with a new pres­id­ent, the U.S. will not leave any troops in the coun­try. The Pentagon is pre­par­ing con­tin­gency plans to with­draw all the re­main­ing 34,000 U.S. troops from Afgh­anistan by year’s end, just in case.

6. What’s the latest the U.S. can wait to sign this pact?

The U.S. has un­til Ju­ly be­fore crunch time. “If we have a new pres­id­ent by Au­gust, I’m com­fort­able that we’ll be able to main­tain the op­tions through that peri­od of time without any dif­fi­culty,” Dun­ford said.

Still, if there’s no agree­ment by Septem­ber, the risk of be­ing un­pre­pared for either a com­plete with­draw­al or leav­ing a fol­low-on force in­creases sig­ni­fic­antly.

“That’s simply a func­tion of the tasks that have to be ac­com­plished and how many days it needs to ac­com­plish those tasks,” Dun­ford said. There are some ser­i­ous lo­gist­ic­al hurdles of plan­ning a fol­low-up mis­sion to the Afgh­anistan war, such as co­ordin­at­ing with al­lies and fig­ur­ing out what in­fra­struc­ture to keep in the coun­try. If the mis­sion will in­stead end al­to­geth­er, the U.S. still needs time to pull all its troops and equip­ment from the coun­try safely.

7. What hap­pens if the se­cur­ity agree­ment is nev­er signed?

Para­phras­ing Dun­ford, the ter­ror­ists win.

The U.S. wants a fu­ture coun­terter­ror­ism mis­sion in Afgh­anistan to pre­vent al-Qaida from re­gen­er­at­ing and car­ry­ing out at­tacks on the West. “Without con­tin­ued coun­terter­ror­ism pres­sure, an em­boldened al-Qaida will not only be­gin to phys­ic­ally re­con­sti­t­ute but they’ll also ex­ploit their per­ceived vic­tory to boost re­cruit­ment, fun­drais­ing, and mor­ale,” Dun­ford said. And the Afghan se­cur­ity forces, if left without U.S. ad­visers, will “be­gin to de­teri­or­ate,” Dun­ford said, along with the se­cur­ity en­vir­on­ment. “The only de­bate is the pace of that de­teri­or­a­tion.”

Still, with the ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans in some polls ur­ging a faster pul­lout from Afgh­anistan than Pres­id­ent Obama is plan­ning, a com­plete U.S. with­draw­al may earn some cheers from the gen­er­al pub­lic.

What We're Following See More »
TALKING CLIMATE CHANGE
Al Gore Meeting with Ivanka Trump
49 minutes ago
THE LATEST
PLENTIFUL OIL RESERVES
Trump Native American Council Recommends Privatizing Indian Land
55 minutes ago
THE LATEST

A group advising Donald Trump on Native American issues is encouraging him to privatize Indian reservations, taking the land out of the hands of the "suffocating federal bureaucracy." Currently, tribes have rights to the land but don't own it, meaning they can drill, but only under strenuous government restriction. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican congressman from Oklahoma and a member of the Cherokee tribe thinks the plan would be supported by Native American tribes nationally.

Source:
IT’S OFFICIAL
Trump to Nominate Carson to Lead HUD
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

As has been rumored for a week, Donald Trump will nominate Ben Carson, his former rival, to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In a statement, Trump said, "We have talked at length about my urban renewal agenda and our message of economic revival, very much including our inner cities. Ben shares my optimism about the future of our country and is part of ensuring that this is a Presidency representing all Americans. He is a tough competitor and never gives up."

Source:
TOO COSTLY, SAYS GREEN PARTY
Stein Drops Pennsylvania Recount
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Supporters of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein on Saturday withdrew a last-ditch lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court aimed at forcing a statewide ballot recount, another major setback in the effort to verify the votes in three states that provided President-elect Donald Trump his margin of victory. Ms. Stein’s campaign announced in a statement Saturday that the Pennsylvania lawsuit had been dropped after the court demanded that a $1 million bond be posted by the 100 Pennsylvania residents who brought the suit."

Source:
ANOTHER MORNING TWEETSTORM
Trump Threatens 35% Tariff on Companies that Move Overseas
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

In a series of early-morning tweets on Sunday, Donald Trump threatened companies that attempt to relocate out of the country. "Any business that leaves our country for another country, fires its employees, builds a new factory or plant in the other country, and then thinks it will sell its product back into the U.S. without retribution or consequence, is WRONG!," he wrote. "There will be a tax on our soon to be strong border of 35% for these companies."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login