Saturday, 08 March 2014 |
After 12 years at the helm, with the much-needed initial prop from America, Mr Karzai is a bitter man today blaming the US for the “war that’s not ours”
A month before he demits office, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has gone public with one of the worst-kept secrets: that he and US President Barack Obama have barely been on talking terms, and that he has nothing but “extreme anger” for the US Government. After 12 years at the helm, with the much-needed initial prop from America, Mr Karzai is a bitter man today. “Afghans died in a war that’s not ours,” he complained in an interview to The Washington Post earlier this week. The Americans, as he put it, fought the long war “not for us” but “for US security and for Western interests”. He conceded he was so emotional about the losses suffered by the Afghan people that he could not really say if the war had been worthwhile overall.
The Americans, too, have been complaining of frustration and exasperation with Mr Karzai. There may be clear relief within the Obama Administration that once the Afghan elections are done with next month, it would not have to deal with him any longer. The issue agitating Washington utmost in recent months has been Mr Karzai’s refusal to sign the much-touted Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA). Without that instrument, the United States says it will be left with the “zero option” of withdrawing all its troops by the year-end. But if the BSA is concluded, it would be willing to maintain a residual presence beyond 2014, albeit largely in a non-combat role of training Afghan security forces and assisting them in counter-terrorism operations. Deadlines that the Obama Administration set for concluding the BSA have come and gone, but Mr Karzai has refused to budge.
America’s current face-off with Russia over the Ukraine crisis may have temporarily relegated the Afghanistan conundrum to the background, but Washington will have to face the issue squarely before long. The Republicans have been warning of the dangers of a total withdrawal of US forces from that country. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon recently attacked President Obama for his “lack of leadership” on this issue. As one who has been advocating a longer US mission, the senior House Republican thundered: “Do we step back and abandon Afghanistan to the wolves? Do we still have a moral responsibility to the people there? Does our humanity still compel us to help people who have known nothing but war for four decades? We abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban once before. And both the United States and the people of Afghanistan paid the price.”
The Pentagon has come out with a proposal for maintaining a residual force of at least 10,000 US troops beyond December 31, 2014, the date that the Obama Administration has set for complete withdrawal. Anything lesser will serve little purpose, in which case the US might as well go for the “zero option” of total pullout by the year-end, the Pentagon has conveyed to the White House. In its scheme of things, the residual force could be for a limited duration of two years, with a draw-down to zero by the end of 2016, coinciding with the conclusion of Mr Obama’s tenure. Pending a final decision on this proposal, the pullout is continuing steadily, with just 33,600 American troops deployed currently — down from a peak of more than 100,000 in the spring of 2011. Even if the White House is game for this proposal, no formal announcement is expected until Afghanistan signs the security pact.
Mr Karzai, after drawing a blank on some of his stiff conditions, has left it to his successor to sign the BSA that would set the terms for continuance of US forces beyond 2014. He has been demanding an end to the night raids and air strikes on Afghan villages that have resulted in a large number of civilian casualties. He has also been urging the launch of peace talks with the Taliban. The US for its part has been insisting on the grant of full immunity to US forces from Afghan and international laws in a bid to guard against prosecution for war crimes. With no forward movement on his demands, Mr Karzai let it be known that he was leaving the BSA issue to his successor, to be chosen in the April 5 presidential election.
But the prospect of a new person at the helm need not be a cause for despondency for Washington, given that some of the leading contenders have announced that they would sign the BSA, if elected. Ten hopefuls remain in the fray to succeed Mr Karzai, whose brother, Mr Qayum Karzai, has just withdrawn from the race in favour of former Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul. Regarded as one of the three strongest candidates, Mr Rassoul is thought to be the outgoing president’s favourite. The other two powerful contenders are Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai and Dr Abdullah Abdullah. While all three have supported the BSA, Mr Ahmadzai has gone so far as to proclaim that he would sign the pact in his “first week in office”.
The Obama Administration, however, is not taking the conclusion of the BSA for granted. Last week, Mr Obama, in a rare telephone conversation with Mr Karzai, let it be known that he was instructing the Pentagon to plan for the orderly withdrawal of all US forces by the end of the year. At the same time, he said he would leave open the possibility of concluding a BSA with the next Afghan government if it chooses to be “a willing and committed partner” for executing “a limited post-2014 mission focused on training, advising and assisting Afghan forces and going after the remnants of core al-Qaeda”. But the longer it takes to conclude the pact, the more challenging it would be to plan and execute any US mission, a White House statement cautioned.
Some analysts wonder how good a residual US force of 10,000 troops would be for Afghan peace and stability. But a failure to clinch even that would be disastrous. A Pentagon-sponsored study conducted by CNA, a reputed Virginia-based think tank, recently warned of a sharp deterioration of the overall situation with the Taliban insurgency escalating to the point of threatening the country’s stability. Withdrawal of international forces and plans to shrink the size of Afghan National Security Force could trigger Taliban resurgence and turn Afghanistan into a safe haven for extremists all over again.
A NATO summit, held in Chicago in May 2012, had projected that member-nations would have to spend a little over $4 billion each year on Afghan security forces. But the CNA study noted that it would cost between $5 billion and $6 billion annually to sustain a force of 373,400 Afghan soldiers and police. This would willy-nilly result in a downsizing of the Afghan force, whereas the study foresees increased Taliban threat to Afghanistan over the next four years. “We conclude that this force is not likely to defeat the Taliban militarily, but that if it can hold against the Taliban insurgency through 2018, the likelihood of a negotiated settlement to the war will increase,” the CNA review noted.
The 12-year war has claimed the lives of more than 13,700 Afghan soldiers and police personnel, besides injuring over 16,500, according to figures put out by the Afghan Government this week. And the NATO-led coalition forces have lost more than 3,400 soldiers, including nearly 2,300 American troops. More than 19,600 US service members have also been wounded in the operations.
(The writer is the Washington Correspondent of The Pioneer)
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/oped/afghan-endgame-karzai-ties-obama-up-in-knots.html
No comments:
Post a Comment