Afghanistan, U.S. near agreement on post-2014 force in Afg

anatta

100% recycled karma
WASHINGTON – The United States and Afghanistan have resolved most issues and are nearing completion of an agreement that paves the way for an American military presence after 2014 that will include a limited U.S. counterterrorism force and military advisers.

"We're at the point now where we concluded the text," said a senior State Department official familiar with the negotiations. "We're in a period of endgame." The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal is not official.

Without the so-called bilateral security agreement, the United States would be unable to remain beyond 2014, jeopardizing Afghanistan's government and its armed forces.

The Afghans have agreed to continue to allow the United States to maintain legal jurisdiction over its troops in Afghanistan, a requirement the Pentagon said was not negotiable.

Disagreement over a similar provision ended up scuttling plans for a residual force in Iraq after the end of the combat mission there in 2011. Without such a provision, U.S. forces could be tried by local courts.

The agreement needs final approval from Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has frequently frustrated the United States in negotiations.

In negotiations over the bilateral security agreement, Afghans pushed for security guarantees from the United States, said Said Jawad, a former Afghanistan ambassador to the United States. Afghanistan has frequently voiced concerns about interference from neighboring Pakistan.

The Afghan military was designed for fighting an internal counterinsurgency and isn't equipped with the fighter aircraft and other military equipment required to defend its borders, Jawad said.

The Afghans also wanted assurances of financial support included in the agreement.

The State Department official said the United States could not spell out such guarantees in the document, which is limited to establishing a framework for the U.S. military presence there, but U.S. officials have tried to allay those concerns in discussions with Afghans.

"It's a big deal because these are the key issues," Jawad said.

After 2014, the Afghan security forces "will still require substantial training, advising and assistance — including financial support — to address ongoing shortcomings," according to a Pentagon report released this week.

The agreement spells out two missions for the U.S. military after 2014: assisting Afghan security forces and establishing a U.S. counterterrorism force that will be limited to pursuing al-Qaeda and its affiliates

It's not clear what the counterterrorism force could do to respond to a large Taliban resurgence after 2014. "This does raise a lot of issues," said Seth Jones, an analyst at Rand. "What happens if the Taliban make a move on a city?"

The official and analysts say the language may allow for U.S. forces to pursue some Taliban leaders and other insurgent groups if there is an established link to al-Qaeda, the international terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think there is a bit of wiggle room," Jones said. "How you define affiliate is subject to some debate."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tan-pentagon-military-agreement-2014/2603945/

( post is redacted)
 
Translation: the Afganistan doesn't believe Paki can control the Taliban (they can't), so wants the US to prop up this regime.

Methods:
finacial support (more of your money for war)
"residual troops" - quick strike forces and definately trainers, which also means a few bases.

Which means a permanent presence in that clusterf*ck.
If the Taliban take over any major areas, or a city - the US ?? -we're probably going to be in the thick of it again

State is negotiating to disallow US troops to be under Afgani law - something the Iraqi's would not
- even as Obama tried to extend a presence past the S.O.F.A. by Bush.

Just like the 2014 date announced for with drawl in Afg is now "kind of"

Summation:
we are going to bleed and pay to keep a democratic regime in a land that doesn't recognize democracy.
we are going to be fighting the Taliban, until they kick us out - perpetual war, with a bad endgame.
 
Translation: the Afganistan doesn't believe Paki can control the Taliban (they can't), so wants the US to prop up this regime.

Methods:
finacial support (more of your money for war)
"residual troops" - quick strike forces and definately trainers, which also means a few bases.

Which means a permanent presence in that clusterf*ck.
If the Taliban take over any major areas, or a city - the US ?? -we're probably going to be in the thick of it again

State is negotiating to disallow US troops to be under Afgani law - something the Iraqi's would not
- even as Obama tried to extend a presence past the S.O.F.A. by Bush.

Just like the 2014 date announced for with drawl in Afg is now "kind of"

Summation:
we are going to bleed and pay to keep a democratic regime in a land that doesn't recognize democracy.
we are going to be fighting the Taliban, until they kick us out - perpetual war, with a bad endgame
.

Great summation.
 
... and the nightmares continue.

This is what Obama wanted to do to the Iraqis.
exactly, and this one isn't going to fracture under a regime like Iraq is.
Look for a loss of territory, or an internal dissaray, there won't be much to patch back together.

we'll either stay, or more likely do a Saigonstyle "bug out" -so much for 12 years of war.

But Obama gets to say he withdrew from Afpak (afganistan & Pakistan) in time for the mid-terms
 
If they want military support (or really ANY support) then they need to renounce their status as an independant nation and just become a colony.
 
I'm angered by this topic because none of you seem to know what it's about.

Why did we go to war with Iraq. It was a big "oops" some call it. So what would we do if someone did that same "oops" to us?

It's well known that the Middle East isn't evolving as fast as us. I find it strange that we decided we could fix that by war. Enough, going to make a War Post on General Topics because it's my 2nd biggest drive to end corrupt politics..
 
I'm angered by this topic because none of you seem to know what it's about.

Why did we go to war with Iraq. It was a big "oops" some call it. So what would we do if someone did that same "oops" to us?

It's well known that the Middle East isn't evolving as fast as us. I find it strange that we decided we could fix that by war. Enough, going to make a War Post on General Topics because it's my 2nd biggest drive to end corrupt politics..

Billy only fought over there but you're right he doesn't know what he's talking about. Good thing you're here to school him.
 
Billy only fought over there but you're right he doesn't know what he's talking about. Good thing you're here to school him.

Just listened to the radio news and over 1000 people were killed by terrorism last month in Iraq, so we can look forward to civil wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan next year.
 
Back
Top