Pakistan looks ahead to end of Afghan war

[unicorn]

In Afghanistan War, No Clear End in Sight
Brian Montopoli

When President Obama laid out his strategy for the war in Afghanistan nearly a year ago, he suggested that while he was deploying 30,000 new troops, the end of the war was not far off.

The troop surge, he said, will "allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."

His position - to send more troops while also offering what looked like a deadline for their return - was meant to give the United States an opportunity to stabilize the country while also addressing concerns that America had no exit strategy.

While the July 2011 date made headlines, however, the president was careful to give himself wiggle room.

July 2011 was only, he noted, the beginning of the end - which meant he could bring home just a few thousand troops and still meet the deadline. In addition, Mr. Obama reserved the right to change the deadline depending on conditions on the ground - if things didn't go well, he and other military leaders said, they would reconsider their plan.

And despite some recent successes, things have not gone well. The situation in Afghanistan largely deteriorated in 2010, and an endgame - one that involves the United States and its allies departing a stable Afghanistan with a minimal terror threat and the capacity to handle its own security - is as elusive as ever.

Now comes word that the Obama administration has a new deadline: As the New York Times reported today, citing officials, the administration has an eye on "ending the American combat mission [in Afghanistan] by 2014."

The July 2011 date - the one used to placate an American public that has grown increasingly weary of the war - may still mean the withdrawal of some troops. But it appears likely that it will ultimately be of little importance when it comes to the actual combat operations. (The White House has not officially commented on the report, but it appears to be a strategic leak by officials, who say it will be formally presented at a NATO summit this week.)

Defenders of the July 2011 date say it gave Americans and allied forces, as well as Afghanis, a goal that could help focus their efforts. Detractors say that the date both obscured the reality of America's commitment in Afghanistan and convinced the Taliban that America would soon be gone, complicating efforts to win the war.

Military officials have been laying the groundwork to largely shrug off the July 2011 date for months, stressing the need to wait for a strategic review at the end of this year that could mean a reassessment. Mr. Obama has done so as well, stating in June that "we did not say that starting July 2011 suddenly there would be no troops from the United States or allied countries in Afghanistan." And Vice President Joe Biden - who was quoted telling Jonathan Alter that "In July of 2011 you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it" - was insisting by July that "it could be as few as a couple thousand troops."

Now, as the Times notes, key officials (among them Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) are coalescing around the 2014 date, even as Afghan president Hamid Karzai pushes for a reduced troop presence immediately. (Karzai has also endorsed the 2014 timetable.)

Yet there is no more reason to think of 2014 as the end date for the war than there has been July 2011. Just like the first deadline, it is a goalpost that can simply be moved; an aspiration, not at end.

Even if things go well between now and then - a big if - 2014 would not be the end of the war. The end of "combat operations," as the Iraq war has shown, does not mean the end of American troop deaths - nine Americans have died in Iraq since Mr. Obama hailed the end of combat operations there in September.

That's because if the combat operation does end in 2014, America will most likely still keep "non-combat" troops - who will be combat capable - in the country. (The "non-combat" troops in Iraq are still fighting alongside Iraqis and engaging in "targeted counterterrorism operations.")

The president is in a difficult position when it comes to Afghanistan: He believes it is crucial to American security to ensure that the country is not allowed to stand as a breeding ground for terrorism. At the same time, a majority of Americans oppose the nine-year-old war, making it politically necessary to signal that the end is in sight.

That doesn't mean that the end actually is in sight, however, or that Afghanis will be prepared to take over security operations in four years. With one deadline approaching, the administration is coalescing around another; if they believe it necessary come 2014, they will simply coalesce around a third.

Is that a bad thing? Not if you believe the administration needs to stay in Afghanistan as long as possible to achieve its goals, regardless of domestic pressures. But it's worth remembering that when you're fighting a war, there's really no such thing as a firm deadline.

 

[Hulk]

US position is clear, it has spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of life. It will not leave Afghanistan just like that, if it had to leave without completing why even wait for July 2011. What will it acheive by then? They will start withdrawing from Afghanistan when they will Afghan troops can fill the gap left by them, then for atleast a decade they will have their people stationed in Afghanistan to oversea the progress and only when Afghanistan becomes stronge enough internally they will leave.

 

[Rig Vedic]

No end in sight -

US to stay with Afghans after 2014: Obama - Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Vajra_Yuddh]

I doubt it will ever end. Think about it; even if mass troops of NATO leave Afghanistan, military advisors, intelligence officers and CIA agents will remain in the country keeping at least a couple of "shared bases" with Afghan forces. Only a country who's insane would ever leave after spending so much on local problems.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I say Pakistan should invade Afghanistan to secure it and protect it

 

[farzansaeed07]

Pakistan must side with Afghan Taliban

 

[Evil Flare]

I say Pakistan should invade Afghanistan to secure it and protect it

Are you serious ? We Don't have that resources .. plus Afghan People always hate invaders .

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

i think parts of the border should be mined

 

[somebozo]

US position is clear, it has spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of life. It will not leave Afghanistan just like that, if it had to leave without completing why even wait for July 2011. What will it acheive by then? They will start withdrawing from Afghanistan when they will Afghan troops can fill the gap left by them, then for atleast a decade they will have their people stationed in Afghanistan to oversea the progress and only when Afghanistan becomes stronge enough internally they will leave.

US position is as clear as gutter water..first of all who asked them or invited for this little party..they only came after a staged terror attack to divert nations and world attention from their bankrupt economy. Had it not been for false wot America would be going into civil war over its economic woes. The US has achieved what it wanted from Afghanistan and WOT..end of story now!!

 

[illuzioN]

I say Pakistan should invade Afghanistan to secure it and protect it

try it, see what happens!

 

[TechLahore]

^^ You are right. Pakistan shouldn't repeat the USSR's and the USA's mistakes. They've both paid dearly for their invasions of Afghanistan.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

i feel sorry for the US (especially the tax payer) because there is no clear exit strategy, or what exactly constitutes victory in a war-torn, factionalized country where corruption exists in every single sphere of life.......

there are Afghan elements who have taken the US on a ride....whether it was Karzai's drug-dealing brother, or imposter talebans taking millions of American dollars for fake intel and supposed ''reconciliationary talks''

the gaps between White House/State Department & the Pentagon/military is astounding and ever-pronounced......we saw it with the dismissal of Gen McChrystal; we see it today between Mr. Obama and Adm. Mullen

Afghanistan isn't just the so-dubbed ''graveyard'' for empires; it appears to also be the divider of them as well


they propose 2014 as the eventual pullout year....what will be achieved in next 3-4 years that could not be achieved in almost a decade?


there are many ramifications on this for Pakistan Nation; therefore our civilian and military officials need to be very clear and refamiliarize and remind NATO of Pakistan's interests. If they are worried about the stability of the region, they must heed to our concerns as well.

 

[Karachiite]

I say Pakistan should invade Afghanistan to secure it and protect it

No need for invasion. Afghanistan will break up after America and NATO's exit. Afghanis are going to look upto us and maybe we can annex Afghanistan then but that country is useless to be honest. Their people will only be a burden on Pakistan.

 

[muse]

Why trust the US?
Harlan Ullman



Quoted before in this column was President John F Kennedy’s dark joke that the only thing worse than being an enemy of the US was being an ally. In the shadow of the NATO heads of state summit that concluded last weekend in Lisbon, Portugal, Kennedy’s remark was stood on its head. The only thing worse for NATO than enemies were friends and allies. President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and the US Congress represented by the Senate were cases in point.

The summit had four major goals. The first was to approve a new strategic concept to replace the one ratified in 1999, the second was to agree on an Afghan strategy, the third was to solidify the alliance’s position on missile defence and the fourth was to improve relations with Russia.

The new strategic concept as well as missile defence, including Russian participation, was indeed approved. The document wisely recognised the needs of the 21st century by broadening NATO from a purely military to a political-military alliance. However, it lacked convincing punch in explaining to its publics why NATO is still relevant today and is not a relic of the past. By listing so many notable aims and good intentions without prioritising them, the new concept circumvented the minefields sown by the many diverging political and strategic objectives among NATO’s 28 members. But until a viable action plan is drawn up and actually implemented, the jury will be out on the long-term impact of the concept.

The alliance further agreed to turn over all security responsibilities to the Afghan forces by the end of 2014. Politically, especially for member states whose publics are opposed to the Afghan adventure, this is a light at the end of the tunnel. Yet, the promise to engage the alliance in Afghanistan for at least four more years does not guarantee reversing failing public support for the mission.

Before the summit, Karzai was unhelpful in the extreme. An interview in The Washington Post early last week, followed by another in the Financial Times (FT), was explosive. Karzai railed against the US and NATO for killing civilians, dark of night arrests and the take down of alleged Taliban. In the FT, Ahmed Rashid, a well known Pakistani journalist, wrote that Karzai’s “new world view (anti-US and NATO) was the most dramatic political shift...in the 26 years that I have known him”.

Karzai more or less drifted back onto the reservation in Lisbon. However, as a senior Western diplomat once observed about Karzai’s behaviour, one wonders if he was “off his meds” or indeed was reflecting his true beliefs in the interviews. If the latter is correct, how can NATO succeed in Afghanistan?

It is now that the political fire-fight in the Senate over the new strategic arms treaty with Russia captures our attention. A little history: for all the mythology of leaving politics at “the water’s edge”, Congress has a sometimes feckless history regarding foreign policy.

A Republican Senate rejected Democratic President Woodrow Wilson’s Versailles treaty ending World War I in part because of how the president ignored that body during the peace conference deliberations. Before Pearl Harbour, Congress was largely isolationist and opposed President Franklin Roosevelt’s efforts to engage the nation in World War II.

That legacy of fecklessness was accelerated by the Vietnam War and Watergate. Since then, the political atmosphere in Washington has become radioactively partisan. Both parties share responsibility and culpability. Consider the last 20 years.

The Democrats were out to obstruct, if not defeat, the presidencies of George H W and George W Bush. The Republicans sought to bring down President Bill Clinton, impeached but not convicted. Now, Barack Obama is in Republican sights. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell brags that his top priority is making Obama a one-term president, clearly ignoring his sworn first duty to defend the constitution.

The weapon of choice is ratification of the New Start with Russia. In the Senate, for months, the Republicans have been insisting that the agreements on missile defence and assuring the reliability of nuclear weapons are flawed. But the driving forces are political. In such a poisonous environment, the nation’s security as well as NATO’s are in jeopardy in the New Start debate and when or if the treaty is approved.

From an objective perspective, the treaty is unexceptional in advancing the interests of Russia and the US. That so many senior US military officers, former officials and NATO allies agree is very convincing. Critics cite distant fears over gaps in weapons reliability and missile defence. That NATO’s new strategic concept recognises the need for nuclear weapons and missile defences is a powerful antidote against these fears.

Kennedy may be proven correct again. Friends can be more dangerous than enemies. Worse, many will ask, why trust the US?

Years ago, Walt Kelly’s iconic Pogo cartoon immortalised our politics: “We have met the enemy. It is us.” Amen!

The writer is Chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business, and Senior Advisor at Washington DC’s Atlantic Council

 

[Kambojaric]

No need for invasion. Afghanistan will break up after America and NATO's exit. Afghanis are going to look upto us and maybe we can annex Afghanistan then but that country is useless to be honest. Their people will only be a burden on Pakistan.

A stable independent Afghanistan is good for both us and them. Gods sake we are their neighbours, we have seen British, Russians, US go in there and come out with nothing. We cant and wont make the same mistake im sure, as for annexing a country? this isnt the 15th century bro.

Also with the useless country part i couldnt disagree more.


WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.

“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.

“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.

American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.

So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.

Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.

“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.

At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.

Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. “The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?” Mr. Brinkley said. “No one knows how this will work.”

With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. “This is a country that has no mining culture,” said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. “They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan.”

The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html