Quantcast

Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 4 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

U.S. mulls full withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan by 2014

By Robert Burns

AP National Security Writer

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 06:41 a.m. HST, Jan 09, 2013


WASHINGTON » The Obama administration says it might leave no troops in Afghanistan after December 2014, an option that defies the Pentagon's view that thousands of troops may be needed to contain al-Qaida and to strengthen Afghan forces.

"We wouldn't rule out any option," including zero troops, Ben Rhodes, a White House deputy national security adviser, said Tuesday.

"The U.S. does not have an inherent objective of 'X' number of troops in Afghanistan," Rhodes said. "We have an objective of making sure there is no safe haven for al-Qaida in Afghanistan and making sure that the Afghan government has a security force that is sufficient to ensure the stability of the Afghan government."

The U.S. now has 66,000 troops in Afghanistan, down from a peak of about 100,000 as recently as 2010. The U.S. and its NATO allies agreed in November 2010 that they would withdraw all their combat troops by the end of 2014, but they have yet to decide what future missions will be necessary and how many troops they would require.

Those issues are central to talks this week as Afghan President Hamid Karzai meets with President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

At stake is the risk of Afghanistan's collapse and a return to the chaos of the 1990s that enabled the Taliban to seize power and provide a haven for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. Fewer than 100 al-Qaida fighters are believed to remain in Afghanistan, although a larger number are just across the border in Pakistani sanctuaries.

Panetta has said he foresees a need for a U.S. counterterrorism force in Afghanistan beyond 2014, plus a contingent to train Afghan forces. He is believed to favor an option that would keep about 9,000 troops in the country.

Administration officials in recent days have said they are considering a range of options for a residual U.S. troop presence of as few as 3,000 and as many as 15,000, with the number linked to a specific set of military-related missions like hunting down terrorists.

Asked in a conference call with reporters whether zero was now an option, Rhodes said, "That would be an option we would consider."

His statement could be interpreted as part of an administration negotiating strategy. On Friday Karzai is scheduled to meet Obama at the White House to discuss ways of framing an enduring partnership beyond 2014.

The two are at odds on numerous issues, including a U.S. demand that any American troops who would remain in Afghanistan after the combat mission ends be granted immunity from prosecution under Afghan law. Karzai has resisted, while emphasizing his need for large-scale U.S. support to maintain an effective security force after 2014.

In announcing last month in Kabul that he had accepted Obama's invitation to visit this week, Karzai made plain his objectives.

"Give us a good army, a good air force and a capability to project Afghan interests in the region," Karzai said, and he would gladly reciprocate by easing the path to legal immunity for U.S. troops.

Karzai is scheduled to meet Thursday with Panetta at the Pentagon and with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the State Department.

Without explicitly mentioning immunity for U.S. troops, Obama's top White House military adviser on Afghanistan, Doug Lute, told reporters Tuesday that the Afghans will have to give the U.S. certain "authorities" if it wants U.S. troops to remain.

"As we know from our Iraq experience, if there are no authorities granted by the sovereign state, then there's not room for a follow-on U.S. military mission," Lute said. He was referring to 2011 negotiations with Iraq that ended with no agreement to grant legal immunity to U.S. troops who would have stayed to help train Iraqi forces. As a result, no U.S. troops remain in Iraq.

David Barno, a retired Army three-star general and former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, wrote earlier this week that vigorous debate has been under way inside the administration on a "minimalist approach" for post-2014 Afghanistan.

In an opinion piece for ForeignPolicy.com on Monday, Barno said the "zero option" was less than optimal but "not necessarily an untenable one." Without what he called the stabilizing influence of U.S. troops, Barno cautioned that Afghanistan could "slip back into chaos."

Barno said the Afghan-Pakistan border area where numbers of Islamic extremists are in hiding could become the scene of a prolonged "intelligence war" after 2014, with the U.S. and its Afghan and Pakistan partners sharing intelligence.

"Given its vital importance, this undertaking will endure — regardless of the size of the residual U.S. military presence," he wrote.

Rhodes said Obama is focused on two main outcomes in Afghanistan: ensuring that the country does not revert to being the al-Qaida haven it was prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and getting the government to the point where it can defend itself.

"That's what guides us, and that's what causes us to look for different potential troop numbers — or not having potential troops in the country," Rhodes said.

He predicted that Obama and Karzai would come to no concrete conclusions on international military missions in Afghanistan beyond 2014, and he said it likely would be months before Obama decides how many U.S. troops — if any — he wants to keep there.

Rhodes said Obama remains committed to further reducing the U.S. military presence this year, although the pace of that withdrawal will not be decided for a few months.

AP Intelligence Writer Kimberly Dozier contributed to this report.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 4 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(4)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Sunny wrote:
al-Qaida will continue to exist and we will never get out of Afghanistan if the mission is to completely eradicate them. Since many are hiding in Pakistan we should work with Pakistani's to contain them as well as continue drone strikes on high-value targets. If al-Qaida sets up operations and training camps in Afghanistan we should not hesitate to strike them with cruise missiles, drones, and air power.
on January 9,2013 | 06:50AM
Charliegrunt wrote:
Before somebody jumps on this, I know Bin Laden has been taken care of. I was focusing on what the initial mission statement should have bee, and still should be minus Bin Laden.
on January 9,2013 | 07:10AM
Charliegrunt wrote:
Let's consider a few facts: Karzai does not control anything outside of Kabul, the drug and war lords do; despite being in Afghanistan for over 10 yrs., their military is still inept and untrustworthy; while our troops try to train their military and help them fight their battles, their troops and police kill our troops; we have, yet, to be successful in building another country; our country is 16 trillion dollars in debt and we're wasting trillions in foreign and military aid in Afghanistan and Pakistan who are not our friends or allies; Bin Laden, Al Queda and the Taliban were responsibly for 9/11, our mission should be to find, fix and kill them. The rest of the world can join us, get the hell out of the way or be considered enemy combatants. Yes, GW under the poor advice of Tenant, Rumsfeld and Cheney screwed up. BO has not done anything to correct the mistake and continuously blames GW. How long is our government going to chase its tail?
on January 9,2013 | 07:07AM
iwanaknow wrote:
And how many businesses want to see us continue to fight cause it's good profits for their business?
on January 9,2013 | 07:49AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News