YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

U.S. at odds with Afghanistan over the post-withdrawal mission

The two countries have been haggling for months over details of the United States' role after troops are pulled out by the end of 2014.

October 06, 2013|By David S. Cloud
  • Sgt. Travor Meysembourg patrols on a mission to clear supply routes of land mines in Kunduz province this spring. Obama administration officials are increasingly skeptical they can complete a deal with Afghanistan this month, as the White House had wanted.
Sgt. Travor Meysembourg patrols on a mission to clear supply routes of land… (Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles…)

WASHINGTON — Closed-door negotiations to determine the American military mission in Afghanistan after 2014 have stalled over U.S. demands to conduct lethal counter-terrorism operations and Afghan insistence that Washington guarantee support in event of cross-border attacks.

President Hamid Karzai is balking at Obama administration demands that U.S. special operations troops and the CIA be allowed to capture or even kill suspected terrorists after most U.S. troops close out America's longest war at the end of next year, according to officials familiar with the negotiations.

The U.S. team, in turn, is refusing to include written promises to come to Afghanistan's aid if it is attacked by militants from neighboring Pakistan or elsewhere after the withdrawal. A formal U.S. defense commitment could require Congress to vote on the agreement, a course the White House is determined to avoid given the bitter partisan climate in Washington.

With both sides still at odds after months of haggling, Obama administration officials are increasingly skeptical they can complete a deal this month, as the White House had wanted.

Karzai spokesman Aimal Faizi told reporters last week in Kabul, the Afghan capital, that the disputes over independent U.S. operations and security guarantees have become potential "deal breakers."

"We find it to be something that will definitely undermine our sovereignty if we allow U.S. forces to have the right to conduct unilateral military operations," Faizi said.

Officials said President Obama hopes to use his State of the Union speech early next year to announce how many U.S. troops will stay behind and for what mission. Without a signed security pact, the United States and its allies will maintain little, if any, military presence in Afghanistan after 2014. Pentagon plans to train Afghan soldiers and police to withstand the still potent Taliban-led insurgency may be abandoned or dramatically downsized, said the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks.

The Obama administration withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 after similar talks with the government in Baghdad collapsed over Iraq's refusal to grant legal immunity to U.S. troops. The country has recently suffered a resurgence of suicide bombings and other lethal violence.

U.S. officials in Afghanistan are more hopeful than their colleagues in Washington that a deal is still possible. But they fear that the longer the standoff drags on, the more likely the talks will collapse, as in Iraq.

About 52,000 U.S. troops still serve in Afghanistan, about half the total of two years ago. The force is expected to shrink to 34,000 by spring and to decrease sharply after that. Afghan forces have assumed a much larger role in combat operations, and the number of bases staffed by U.S. and foreign troops has fallen to 90 from more than 800.

Security remains tenuous across much of the country, although Afghan troops in most cases have managed to hold up against insurgent attacks. U.S. military commanders say the Afghans will need additional training and equipment after 2014, however.

Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has privately backed deploying more than 13,000 U.S. troops. The White House is believed to be in favor of about 7,000 troops, along with several thousand special operations troops to conduct counter-terrorism raids, an official said.

If a deal is reached, Pentagon planners are considering a "Kabul-centric strategy" that would limit U.S. troops to training and assisting Afghan security forces only in the capital and surrounding provinces.

Securing Kabul and its periphery would ensure survival for Karzai's government. But it could allow parts of southern and eastern Afghanistan, where U.S. troops fought and died for years, to slip back into insurgent control. Partly for that reason, the Kabul option is not Dunford's preferred choice.

Planners also are looking at a regional option under which the Pentagon would deploy troops in the east and south to help Afghan security forces, and would conduct limited combat operations on their own. But it is unclear whether the White House would agree to supply more troops and money after the withdrawal.

Karzai long has vacillated between wanting the U.S. military to stay and to provide billions of dollars in aid, and wanting to be seen as the builder of a new Afghanistan that controls its own territory without foreign interference. He has pressed to restrict U.S. military raids and CIA activities, and is pushing for limits on U.S. operations to be written into the draft agreement.

The Afghan president, whose term ends next year, also has been critical of U.S.-led foreign troops, even saying that Afghan security will become easier after their departure.

Los Angeles Times Articles