Why zero is not an option

[RabzonKhan]

Why zero is not an option

The Economist
Jul 20th 2013

Afghanistan after 2014

Hamid Karzai and Barack Obama should stop playing games with Afghanistan’s future

IF ORDINARY Afghans really mattered to their and America’s governments, Hamid Karzai and Barack Obama would be standing shoulder-to-shoulder to reassure them about their security once the bulk of American combat troops have left the country by the end of 2014. Instead, a squabble between the two is poisoning the atmosphere in Afghanistan, with potentially disastrous long-term consequences.

The immediate cause of the row is last month’s bungled opening of a Taliban political office in Doha. It is not clear who is to blame for allowing the Taliban to grandstand by flying their own flag and claiming the office as the embassy of the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”. But Mr Karzai was quick to accuse America—unfairly—of sidelining his government in a peace process that is meant to be Afghan-led. He angrily suspended negotiations over the bilateral security agreement that is needed to keep a residual American force in Afghanistan after the combat troops have left. A video conference with Mr Obama failed to clear the air. Since then, an exasperated White House has hinted that the pace of the planned drawdown may be accelerated and that there is a real possibility of no troops at all being left behind after 2014—the “zero option”.

Both sides are taking up positions that risk damaging what should be their real objectives. From Afghanistan’s point of view, the bilateral pact with America and a related “status of forces agreement” with NATO are essential for stability, as they would define the role and legal standing of international troops after 2014. Afghan National Security Forces are now leading the fight against insurgents in all parts of the country, and they are acquitting themselves well. However, they still need assistance with logistics, air support, intelligence, medical evacuation and dealing with improvised explosive devices (see article). Denying Afghan soldiers this help would damage their morale, while encouraging the Taliban to believe that time is on their side. It does not mean that the Taliban will take over the country again—they are too small and ineffective for that. But they could re-establish a grip on large parts of the south and east of the country, give succour to al-Qaeda, and sow the seeds for a new civil war.

None of those outcomes is remotely in the West’s interests. Yet through a mixture of miscalculation and mutual frustration, it could happen. In Iraq failure to reach a similar security agreement led to the sudden and premature departure of all American forces.

The problem is that both Mr Karzai and Mr Obama are playing to their political bases. Most of Mr Obama’s supporters would be delighted if all American forces came home yesterday. Many Americans fail to appreciate the real—if dearly bought—progress that NATO has brought to Afghanistan and underestimate the damage that a resurgent Taliban would do.

Mr Karzai’s position is more complex. Although he appears not to want to flout the constitution by trying to run in the presidential election, due on April 5th, he is desperately looking for ways to preserve what he sees as his legacy, including securing his family’s interests and being able to stay safely in Afghanistan once he has left office. Critics fear that, having so far failed to find a successor, Mr Karzai may engineer a political crisis to provide an excuse for postponing the vote.

Mr Karzai should stop playing games. The November deadline for the security agreement is already too close. The talks must be restarted and Mr Karzai must be realistic about what America can promise. The date of the presidential election must also be kept. This week parliament passed an election law, a crucial step towards a transparent poll. Encouragingly, Mr Karzai has now signed it. But it is too soon to be confident about the law’s implementation. Foreign aid donors, who in 2012 pledged $16 billion over the following four years, should remind Mr Karzai that a fair election is essential both for his place in history and for their unstinting support.

Presidents behaving badly

As for Mr Obama, he should swiftly announce the size of the “training and enabling” force he intends to leave in Afghanistan after 2014. It need not be huge—no fewer than 12,000, informed generals reckon, but no more than 20,000, with NATO allies providing about a third of the troops. Forbearance and persistence now are surely burdens worth bearing in order to secure a fairly stable future Afghanistan: one that never again shelters terrorists bent on global jihad.

 

[pakistani342]

What is a heartfelt passionate appeal by the editorial board of the Economist - but a few observations of mine:

1. I think the article (and a lot of similar such appeals) start on the wrong foot: "IF ORDINARY Afghans really mattered to their and America’s governments ...":
a. Ordinary Afghans really are not the responsibility of the US government they are the responsibility of the the Afghan people and the Afghan government.
b. Such statements, no matter how well-intentioned are really harmful because they confuse arguments and thus impede the building of a framework that has a chance of getting the Afghan people to a semblance of peace and prosperity.

2. To clarify "1" - everyone wishes the Afghan people well but that does not translate into things such as:
a. Having American boys from Arkansas and Oklahoma do the fighting and bleeding so Afghan girls can go to school
b. US and other (non Afghan) tax payers writing checks so that the Afghans can have a better standard of living when the fiscal environment in the world is so tight
The sooner the Afghans and their friends understand and come to terms with these hard truths, the better it will be for Afghans and the rest of the world as it will force a realistic assessment of what the Afghans need to do or give up to attain peace and prosperity.

3. Further the Author(s) is/are surprisingly naive for those who are able to pen for the Economist, a cursory reading of the history of conflict does reveal that the personalities behind the lofty titles are significant factors in how interstate relations play out - perhaps reading of "Why Nations Go to War by John G. Stoessinger" will yield a more realistic appraisal of the US/Afghan/Pakistan dynamic.

 

[Developereo]

The Economist is either clueless or acting foolishly naive.

The fact is that the US and Karzai never got along. Karzai is a two-timing scoundrel who was tolerated by the US because they needed a local face to be in charge. Washington can't wait until they don't have to put up this charade any more. For his part, Karzai knows his days are numbered and is desperately trying to find a new sugar daddy in India, Iran or Russia. No one's biting because they know the kind of man he is.

As for the ANA holding its own, that's a good laugh. Two weeks after the US leaves, half the ANA will go AWOL and steal some equipment with them.

 

[RabzonKhan]

What is a heartfelt passionate appeal by the editorial board of the Economist - but a few observations of mine:

1. I think the article (and a lot of similar such appeals) start on the wrong foot: "IF ORDINARY Afghans really mattered to their and America’s governments ...":
a. Ordinary Afghans really are not the responsibility of the US government they are the responsibility of the the Afghan people and the Afghan government.
b. Such statements, no matter how well-intentioned are really harmful because they confuse arguments and thus impede the building of a framework that has a chance of getting the Afghan people to a semblance of peace and prosperity.

2. To clarify "1" - everyone wishes the Afghan people well but that does not translate into things such as:
a. Having American boys from Arkansas and Oklahoma do the fighting and bleeding so Afghan girls can go to school
b. US and other (non Afghan) tax payers writing checks so that the Afghans can have a better standard of living when the fiscal environment in the world is so tight
The sooner the Afghans and their friends understand and come to terms with these hard truths, the better it will be for Afghans and the rest of the world as it will force a realistic assessment of what the Afghans need to do or give up to attain peace and prosperity.

3. Further the Author(s) is/are surprisingly naive for those who are able to pen for the Economist, a cursory reading of the history of conflict does reveal that the personalities behind the lofty titles are significant factors in how interstate relations play out - perhaps reading of "Why Nations Go to War by John G. Stoessinger" will yield a more realistic appraisal of the US/Afghan/Pakistan dynamic.

I agree with what you say, we did not start this war to liberate ordinary Afghans from the clutches of terrorist, we went to war after the Taliban repeatedly refused to expel Osama bin Laden and close down Al Qaeda’s terrorist camps.

The Economist is a liberal newspaper and the “heartfelt passionate appeal” is directed at its core readership, but aside from that, the article has some substance to it, they are right in criticizing the Obama administration's foolish zero-option policy, this damn policy only encourages our enemies and reinforces the belief in many that America is an unreliable ally.

We have no other way but to help Afghanistan so it can defend itself from the Global Jihadist.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The Economist is either clueless or acting foolishly naive.

The fact is that the US and Karzai never got along. Karzai is a two-timing scoundrel who was tolerated by the US because they needed a local face to be in charge. Washington can't wait until they don't have to put up this charade any more. For his part, Karzai knows his days are numbered and is desperately trying to find a new sugar daddy in India, Iran or Russia. No one's biting because they know the kind of man he is.

As for the ANA holding its own, that's a good laugh. Two weeks after the US leaves, half the ANA will go AWOL and steal some equipment with them.

You have a point there, Karzai has a split personality and is a very difficult man to work with, but thank goodness his days are numbered as he cannot stand for a third term.

You may laugh for now, but let's see who gets the last laugh.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

The Economist is either clueless or acting foolishly naive.

The fact is that the US and Karzai never got along. Karzai is a two-timing scoundrel who was tolerated by the US because they needed a local face to be in charge. Washington can't wait until they don't have to put up this charade any more. For his part, Karzai knows his days are numbered and is desperately trying to find a new sugar daddy in India, Iran or Russia. No one's biting because they know the kind of man he is.

As for the ANA holding its own, that's a good laugh. Two weeks after the US leaves, half the ANA will go AWOL and steal some equipment with them.

And when is the USA leaving ? Not anytime soon . No.

 

[That Guy]

It may not be the optimal option, yet it is being considered nonetheless. The fact remains is that this war is increasingly becoming unpopular in the US and NATO nations, and with the dispute between Karzai and Obama, it is clear that the "zero option" is becoming more attractive to the Obama administration.

It may not be what's in the best interest of Afghanistan and the region, but it's one that may happen regardless of what needs to be done.

 

[pakistani342]

I agree with what you say, we did not start this war to liberate ordinary Afghans from the clutches of terrorist, we went to war after the Taliban repeatedly refused to expel Osama bin Laden and close down Al Qaeda’s terrorist camps.

I concur we are in agreement - Further I was glad that as a side effect the misogynist Taliban got deposed and that there was a chance at rebuilding Afghanistan.

My gripe is that the US (and Pakistan) has disproportionately paid the price for rebuilding Afghanistan. And, as you will have seen on this forum that Afghans (and it is true of the wider Afghan society) think that they are doing the US a favor of letting them help Afghans.

the article has some substance to it, they are right in criticizing the Obama administration's foolish zero-option policy, this damn policy only encourages our enemies and reinforces the belief in many that America is an unreliable ally.

We have no other way but to help Afghanistan so it can defend itself from the Global Jihadist.

On this I am not sure.

There is essentially no enemy of the US that can realistically challenge her - especially after the 9/11 build up in our capabilities.

I think the US has done more than her fair share plus she has dealt with the perpetrators of 9/11 appropriately.

Afghans should be able to fight and defend themselves without my tax dollars or life and limb - it would seem that they have far more reason to fight than the Taliban and it looks highly unlikely that the Taliban will ever field an air force or navy.

If the Afghans need money to fend off the Taliban: they can sell their assets like the Wakhan corridor; Aynak, Haji Gak at fire sale prices to raise money for what they believe in - sorry but they can't have my money: I have to put money in my daughters college fund.

 

[RabzonKhan]

I concur we are in agreement - Further I was glad that as a side effect the misogynist Taliban got deposed and that there was a chance at rebuilding Afghanistan.

My gripe is that the US (and Pakistan) has disproportionately paid the price for rebuilding Afghanistan. And, as you will have seen on this forum that Afghans (and it is true of the wider Afghan society) think that they are doing the US a favor of letting them help Afghans.



On this I am not sure.

There is essentially no enemy of the US that can realistically challenge her - especially after the 9/11 build up in our capabilities.

I think the US has done more than her fair share plus she has dealt with the perpetrators of 9/11 appropriately.

Afghans should be able to fight and defend themselves without my tax dollars or life and limb - it would seem that they have far more reason to fight than the Taliban and it looks highly unlikely that the Taliban will ever field an air force or navy.

If the Afghans need money to fend off the Taliban: they can sell their assets like the Wakhan corridor; Aynak, Haji Gak at fire sale prices to raise money for what they believe in - sorry but they can't have my money: I have to put money in my daughters college fund.

Pakistani342, as an American taxpayer, trust me, I fully understand your frustration, but the problem is if we prematurely cut our losses and run, then all the human and financial sacrifices we have made so far will go in the drain and top of that the US will lose all its credibility, it will give a tremendous boost to our enemies, (especially the Global Jihadist) the consequence of that will be more chaos in South Asia, Africa and Middle East, keep in mind, most of the oil supplies of the West comes from these regions.

Anyone who has been following Afghanistan war knows its security forces alone are not capable in defending their country from the Global jihadist onslaught, they will need our support in intelligence, logistics, air support and especially we need bases for our drones, which I genuinely believe are terrorist killers.

Now the important question is, to achieve these tasks, how many troops should we leave behind, the US military wants around 20,000, on the other hand, before floating the zero option the Obama administration was considering around 6000.

Note, currently we have around 60,000 troops and our budget for Afghanistan is around 100 billion dollars for the year 2012-2013.

Just remember my friend, the last time we abandoned Afghanistan (and Pakistan), Afghanistan ultimately ended up as international terrorist hub from where the Al Qaeda planned, trained and executed attacks on our embassies in Africa and the September 11 attacks.

Our minimum goal should be to leave the country stable enough that it does not plunge into yet another civil war, which can also severely threaten the stability of nuclear Pakistan.

 

[pakistani342]

if we prematurely cut our losses and run, then all the human and financial sacrifices we have made so far will go in the drain

Not to come off as harsh but I think this is a rather stupid argument: in two words *sunk cost* or in layman terms:

1. We cannot throw good money after bad.
2. The living US servicemen's (and servicewomen's) lives and limbs cannot be sacrificed because of previous precious lives lost and scarred.

The US will lose all its credibility,

The US did not loose credibility when we abandoned Vietnam. And, Afghanistan by itself matters little to the rest of the world. If charity is our concern there are lines of tormented humanity far worse than Afghans, might I suggest DRC for a start.

it will give a tremendous boost to our enemies, especially the Global Jihadist)

Which enemies, the barefoot misogynist Taliban? I suspect we're creating more enemies by staying in Afghanistan.

Now for the global Jihadist, yes they are a concern but that is why precisely we must shift of resources from Afghanistan to places like Syria. Syria essentially borders the West and has an educated, mobile and sophisticated population which if radicalized will be a nightmarish scenario.

As ambassador Blackwill said, a sky dark with drones over Afghanistan will keep be sufficient to mow down any remnants of Al Qaeda - And drones need not be based from Afghanistan or Pakistan.

the consequence of that will be more chaos in South Asia, Africa and Middle East, keep in mind, most of the oil supplies of the West comes from these regions.

Seriously?

Anyone who has been following Afghanistan war knows its security forces alone are not capable in defending their country from the Global jihadist onslaught, they will need our support in intelligence, logistics, air support and especially we need bases for our drones, which I genuinely believe are terrorist killers.

That is not my problem - if the Afghans are not willing to stand up for sending their daughters to school then so be it - I am really focused on sending my daughter to school.

Now the important question is, to achieve these tasks, how many troops should we leave behind, the US military wants around 20,000, on the other hand, before floating the zero option the Obama administration was considering around 6000.

The only people in the West who are shouting stay in Afghanistan are the right winged neo-cons and the extreme left bleeding heart liberals - I think the vast majority os us knows that this is unnecessary war - they only reason we're there now is inertia.

Note, currently we have around 60,000 troops and our budget for Afghanistan is around 100 billion dollars for the year 2012-2013.

Just remember my friend, the last time we abandoned Afghanistan (and Pakistan), Afghanistan ultimately ended up as international terrorist hub from where the Al Qaeda planned, trained and executed attacks on our embassies in Africa and the September 11 attacks.

Dangerously incorrect reasoning: in short:
1.The homeland security focused capabilities added since 9/11 can keep us safe
2. Staying in Afghanistan is actually bad for us as it starves these programs of funds,
3. and it suffocates our social fabric at home - why are we giving 8 billion dollars to Afghans per year (without securing mineral rights or other economic concessions) when Detroit is declaring bankruptcy.

Our minimum goal should be to leave the country stable enough that it does not plunge into yet another civil war, which can also severely threaten the stability of nuclear Pakistan.

An Afghan civil war is an Afghan matter - As a reminder Pakistan was safe and stable the last few times the Afghans decided to gut each other and yes: Pakistan matters to the rest of the world, the US should focus on Pakistan and I don't mean aid.

In fact I think outsourcing Afghanistan to Pakistan is probably the most cost effective way to safe guard US interests.

Not to be condescending - I am curious have you finished college?

 

[Major Sam]

Not to come off as harsh but I think this is a rather stupid argument: in two words *sunk cost* or in layman terms:

1. We cannot throw good money after bad.
2. The living US servicemen's (and servicewomen's) lives and limbs cannot be sacrificed because of previous precious lives lost and scarred.



The US did not loose credibility when we abandoned Vietnam. And, Afghanistan by itself matters little to the rest of the world. If charity is our concern there are lines of tormented humanity far worse than Afghans, might I suggest DRC for a start.



Which enemies, the barefoot misogynist Taliban? I suspect we're creating more enemies by staying in Afghanistan.

Now for the global Jihadist, yes they are a concern but that is why precisely we must shift of resources from Afghanistan to places like Syria. Syria essentially borders the West and has an educated, mobile and sophisticated population which if radicalized will be a nightmarish scenario.

As ambassador Blackwill said, a sky dark with drones over Afghanistan will keep be sufficient to mow down any remnants of Al Qaeda - And drones need not be based from Afghanistan or Pakistan.



Seriously?



That is not my problem - if the Afghans are not willing to stand up for sending their daughters to school then so be it - I am really focused on sending my daughter to school.



The only people in the West who are shouting stay in Afghanistan are the right winged neo-cons and the extreme left bleeding heart liberals - I think the vast majority os us knows that this is unnecessary war - they only reason we're there now is inertia.



Dangerously incorrect reasoning: in short:
1.The homeland security focused capabilities added since 9/11 can keep us safe
2. Staying in Afghanistan is actually bad for us as it starves these programs of funds,
3. and it suffocates our social fabric at home - why are we giving 8 billion dollars to Afghans per year (without securing mineral rights or other economic concessions) when Detroit is declaring bankruptcy.



An Afghan civil war is an Afghan matter - As a reminder Pakistan was safe and stable the last few times the Afghans decided to gut each other and yes: Pakistan matters to the rest of the world, the US should focus on Pakistan and I don't mean aid.

In fact I think outsourcing Afghanistan to Pakistan is probably the most cost effective way to safe guard US interests.

Not to be condescending - I am curious have you finished college?

i am agree with most of your post sensible and logical.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Officials: Al-Qaida Plots Comeback in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON February 28, 2014 (AP)
By KIMBERLY DOZIER AP Intelligence Writer

Al-Qaida's Afghanistan leader is laying the groundwork to relaunch his war-shattered organization once the United States and international forces withdraw from the country, as they have warned they will do without a security agreement from the Afghan government, U.S. officials say.

Farouq al-Qahtani al-Qatari has been cementing local ties and bringing in small numbers of experienced militants to train a new generation of fighters, and U.S. military and intelligence officials say they have stepped up drone and jet missile strikes against him and his followers in the mountainous eastern provinces of Kunar and Nuristan. The objective is to keep him from restarting the large training camps that once drew hundreds of followers before the U.S.-led war began.

The officials say the counterterrorism campaign - a key reason the Obama administration agreed to keep any troops in Afghanistan after 2014 - could be jeopardized by the possibility of a total pullout.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said the number of al-Qaida members in Afghanistan has risen but not much higher than as many as the several hundred or so the U.S. has identified in the past.

"I think most are waiting for the U.S. to fully pull out by 2014," he said.

The administration would like to leave up to 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after combat operations end on Dec. 31, to continue training Afghan forces and conduct counterterrorism missions. But without the agreement that would authorize international forces to stay in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama has threatened to pull all troops out, and NATO forces would follow suit. After talking to Afghan President Hamid Karzai this week, Obama ordered the Pentagon to begin planning for the so-called zero option.

U.S. military and intelligence officials say unless they can continue to fly drones and jets from at least one air base in Afghanistan — either Bagram in the north or Jalalabad in the east — al-Qahtani and his followers could eventually plan new attacks against U.S. targets, although experts do not consider him one of the most dangerous al-Qaida leaders.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss publicly the secret counterterrorism campaign or intelligence.

Administration officials have hoped that the U.S. could eventually wind down counterterrorism operations like drone strikes in the region after reducing the al-Qaida network, leaving local forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan to control the remnants.

But al-Qaida is not weakened enough yet, and U.S. officials have testified that the inexperienced Afghan forces aren't ready to take over the task unaided.

National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden told The Associated Press this week that "as the possibility of a full withdrawal has grown in Afghanistan," the administration was "undertaking a methodical review of any U.S. capabilities that may be affected and developing strategies to mitigate impacts."

"The United States will take the steps necessary to combat terrorism and protect our interests," she added.

Some administration officials have said al-Qaida in Afghanistan is less of a threat than when the war began; it is estimated to be as many as several hundred forced to shelter in the remotest part of the country.

They say al-Qahtani is so far off the beaten path, he is nearly irrelevant to the larger al-Qaida movement. Two U.S. intelligence officials say his group has been so cut off that it has been forced to rely on the Taliban for funding and weapons at times, where it used to be the other way around. Those officials are far more concerned about al-Qaida's new offshoots fighting in the Syrian civil war.

"It's really hard to get to New York City from northern Kunar or southern Nuristan" where al-Qahtani is based, said Douglas Ollivant, a former senior U.S. military adviser in eastern Afghanistan, now with the New American Foundation.

"We do want to keep them bottled up there," but he said that's something Afghan forces can do on their own. "The Afghan forces are not capable of going up there and hunting them, but they are capable of containing them," the former U.S. military officer said.

Other experts see al-Qahtani and his ilk as the main reason to push for at least a skeleton security force in Afghanistan.

"There's an influx of Jihadist groups — not massive — now active in Afghanistan," said Seth Jones of the Washington-based RAND Corp. He once worked for U.S. Special Operations Command in Afghanistan. He listed the most dangerous as al-Qaida, the Pakistan Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, blamed for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, which has strong links to al-Qaida.

"Not having U.S. forces in Afghanistan would embolden these groups and be counterproductive for U.S. national security," he said.

Those tracking al-Qahtani say he has survived by following some of the same rules that helped Osama bin Laden avoid capture for so many years: He stays off cellphones and radios to hide from spy satellites and airborne radars, instead using couriers or face-to-face meetings, and he stays on the move.

When he travels to populated areas, he stays among women and children, whom he knows the U.S. will avoid striking.

The local tribesmen do not aid the U.S. effort; nor does the barren, mountainous terrain where incoming raiders are visible for miles.

"When helicopters went in, you can hear the whistles go up," from the villages, echoing across the valleys and sending militants fleeing for cover, one of the U.S. military officials said.

The officials say U.S. special operators have all but given up capturing al-Qahtani and have traded fruitless and dangerous helicopter-borne raids for air strikes by drone and jet, averaging three to five a week.

To their knowledge, they have never come close to striking him.

The reports give added ammunition to a comprehensive intelligence analysis on Afghanistan completed in December. The report predicted the country will largely disintegrate along ethnic lines after the U.S. departs, with the central government controlling Kabul and a few other key cities.

 

[RabzonKhan]

US gen: Corruption is top threat in Afghanistan

AP/Yahoo
By DEB RIECHMANN
April 30 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) — A former commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan said Wednesday that corruption, not the Taliban, is the worst threat to the future of the war-torn country.


"For too long we focused our attention solely on the Taliban as the existential threat to Afghanistan," Ret. Gen. John Allen told a Senate subcommittee. "They are an annoyance compared to scope and the magnitude of corruption."

Allen framed his opening remarks to the lawmakers in the form of a letter to the winner, who has not yet been determined, of the recent Afghan presidential election.

"While the Afghan National Army will battle your nation's foes and, in that context, battle the Taliban, the battle for Afghanistan — the real fight — will be won by righteous law enforcement, a functioning judiciary and an unambiguous commitment to the rule of law," Allen said.

"Wresting back the institutions of governance from corruption must be one of your highest priorities. ... Corruption is the dry rot of democracy."

Allen reiterated his recommendation that 13,600 U.S. troops and about 6,000 other international forces stay in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission ends in December. The Afghan forces need the help to improve their leadership skills and technical know-how, which will allow them to mitigate the threat from the Taliban going forward, he said.

Allen also urged the next Afghan president to repair relations with the United States, which have been badly damaged by Afghan President Hamid Karzai's unwillingness to sign a bilateral security agreement with the U.S. And he called on the new president to make Afghanistan business-friendly, reach out to Pakistan and protect the rights of women and civil society.

Allen's testimony echoed a 260-page report issued Wednesday by the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. The report said that more than a decade of work financed with American tax dollars is at stake if bribery and theft are left unabated in Afghanistan.

Widespread corruption hampers the government's ability to collect revenue and hinders economic development and the effort to promote accountability, the quarterly report said.

"The costs in Afghanistan — both in lives lost and money spent — have been enormous,'" Special Inspector General John Sopko said in the report. "If we don't take advantage of this opportunity and get serious about corruption right now, we are putting all of the fragile gains that we have achieved in this — our longest war — at risk of failure."

SIGAR says corruption is affecting all levels of customs collection, a revenue stream that could help Afghanistan become less dependent on international assistance. The report said U.S. agencies estimate that tens of millions of dollars are lost to smuggling each year and that stemming corruption "could potentially double the customs revenues remitted to the central government."

Between December 2012 and December 2013, Afghanistan missed its $2.4 billion revenue collection target by nearly 12 percent and reportedly could miss this year's target of $2.5 billion by as much as 20 percent, the SIGAR report said.

"This would mean that the Afghan government will only be able to pay for about a third of its $7.5 billion budget. It will depend on the international community to cover the shortfall," according to the report.

The U.S. has allocated at least $198 million to help Afghanistan collect customs revenue. Efficiency and collections have been improved at various sites, including the Kabul International Airport, but corruption still permeates all levels of the process, the report said.

 

[RabzonKhan]

As Obama Draws Down, Al Qaeda Grows in Afghanistan

The Daily Beast
Eli Lake
May 29 2014

American forces are headed for the exit in Afghanistan. But new U.S. intelligence assessments say that the terrorist threat there is on the rise.

As President Obama outlines what he promises to be the end of the war in Afghanistan, new U.S. intelligence assessments are warning that al Qaeda is beginning to re-establish itself there.

Specifically, the concern for now is that al Qaeda has created a haven in the northeast regions of Kunar and Nuristan and is able to freely operate along Afghanistan’s only major highway—Route One, which connects the airports of Kandahar and Kabul.

“There is no doubt they have a significant presence in northeast Afghanistan,” Mac Thornberry, the Republican vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told The Daily Beast. “It’s a lot of speculation about exact numbers, but again part of the question is what are their numbers going to be and what are there activities going to be when the pressure lets up.”

If Thornberry’s warnings prove correct, then Obama is faced with two bad choices. He either breaks his promise to end America's longest war or he ends up losing that war by withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan too soon, allowing al Qaeda to re-establish a base of operations in the country from which it launched 9/11.

For years, the official intelligence community estimate was that a little more than 100 al Qaeda fighters remained in Kunar Province, a foreboding territory of imposing mountains and a local population in the mountains at least that largely agrees with al Qaeda’s ascetic Salafist philosophy.

But recent estimates from the military and the U.S. intelligence community have determined that al Qaeda’s presence has expanded to nearby Nuristan and that the group coordinates its operations and activities with allies like the Pakistan-based Taliban and Haqqani Network.

On Tuesday, in response to President Obama’s announcement that he would be leaving 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan past his original end of 2014 deadline for withdrawal, Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, also warned about northeast Afghanistan.

“Even now, an al Qaeda safe haven is emerging in northeastern Afghanistan,” Rogers said. “And I question whether the enemy will take further advantage of the announced timeline to renew its efforts to launch new operations, as we see them attempting in Iraq and Syria today.”

Stephanie Sanok Kostro, the acting director for homeland security and counterterrorism at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The Daily Beast, “By reducing troop levels to under 10,000 [in Afghanistan], it will certainly create more space for al Qaeda in the north. The north has not seen a lot of attention given ISAF’s focus on the south and southeast of the country. So this has left the north vulnerable to al Qaeda influences and this is only going to get worse.”

Those concerns are not universally held by Washington’s national security community, however. Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, acknowledged the risk of al Qaeda’s re-emergence in Afghanistan, but he said today the threat from al Qaeda was far more worrisome in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq.

“I think there has always been a concern that when we leave Afghanistan that al Qaeda may be able to re-assert itself. While there is some al Qaeda presence remaining in Afghanistan that we should be worried about, there is far more to worry about in Syria, Iraq and Yemen,” he told The Daily Beast.

Schiff said he thinks al Qaeda in Afghanistan has been “significantly degraded and repressed,” but he added that he did not believe the group’s presence has been “eliminated.” “That’s the reason why the president wants to keep 9,800 troops there,” he said.

The White House had hinted earlier that it would agree to a much lower number, but in the end Obama agreed to nearly all of the troops requested by Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Dunford pressed Obama for 10,000 troops with the hope of an additional contingent of a few thousand NATO forces as well.

But Obama is nonetheless committed to ending the war by the end of his term. On Tuesday, he said half of the 9,800 troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2015 and those troops that remained would exit the country by the end of 2016.

Dunford himself has warned publicly that al Qaeda would re-emerge if the White House withdrew all forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

For years, the military was content to leave the mountainous Kunar and Nuristan region to insurgents and their Islamist allies. “We made a calculated decision to pull out of the valleys of Kunar and Nuristan and to focus on securing the only meaningful route connecting the mountains to access to the rest of the world which is the Kunar River Valley,” Fred Kagan, an unofficial adviser to three ISAF commanders between 2009 and 2012, told The Daily Beast.

Kagan served on the assessment group for former ISAF commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, that informed the 2009 counter-insurgency strategy for Afghanistan. That strategy deployed a surge in forces into the country with the goal of pacifying the Taliban and training up the Afghan security forces to the point where they could secure the country without assistance from the U.S. military.

One U.S. intelligence officer whose focus is Afghanistan said al Qaeda and its allies have already gained access to the Kunar River Valley as U.S. forces began to draw down its presence this year.

Another concern for the U.S. military and intelligence community is the access al Qaeda now has to Route One, the highway that runs through the provinces south of Kabul that connects the capital city to Kandahar. The U.S. intelligence official said there remains disagreement on the group responsible for a massive truck bomb that was intercepted last fall before it could detonate at its target, Forward Operating Base Goode near Gardez in Paktia Province. “There is a lot of evidence that this was al Qaeda,” this official said.

Kagan said he was concerned because the military never cleared the provinces south of Kabul of the Haqqani Network and Taliban forces during the surge in 2009 and 2010. “The provinces south of Kabul were never fully cleared of Haqqani and Taliban forces because the president withdrew the surge forces prematurely,” Kagan added.

Needless to say, this is not the picture of Afghanistan painted this week by Obama. Speaking at the Commencement Ceremony at West Point, he said, “We are winding down our war in Afghanistan,” he said. “Al Qaeda’s leadership in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more.”

While it’s true that Osama bin Laden and other top lieutenants were killed in Obama’s first term, it’s also true that the pace of those drone attacks against the extremists in Pakistan have since declined. According to the New America Foundation’s database for drone attacks there have been no drone strikes in Pakistan since December 25, 2013. Reza Jan, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats project, concluded in a paper published Wednesday that the pause in drone strikes in Pakistan has given the Pakistani Taliban a chance to regroup and replenish its leadership ranks. Jan said Maulana Fazlullah, the new chief of Pakistan’s Taliban, has established a haven in Nuristan today. Other reports from the region have said he travels between Afghanistan and Pakistan’s border region with ease.

“I think our intelligence community is very concerned that al Qaeda in northeastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan will grow stronger without pressure being applied to them,” Thornberry said.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Now there goes Obama's zero option, I'm happy, actually very happy. I was opposed to this ridiculous policy from day one.

NATO forces to remain in Afghanistan alongside U.S. troops, officials say

October 19, 2015
FoxNews.com

Germany, Turkey and Italy are set to maintain their deployments in Afghanistan at current levels, a senior NATO official told Reuters on Monday.

The announcement comes one week after the U.S. government decided to prolong its 14-year military presence there.

The Taliban's recent takeover of a provincial capital has raised concerns about the abilities of Afghan security forces. The United States and its NATO allies now say events, rather than timetables, must dictate gradual troop reductions.

"We should make any changes on our troop structure based on conditions on the ground, not on schedules," NATO's top commander in Europe Philip Breedlove told Reuters. "Other nations are already ringing in that they are committed."

NATO countries will continue alongside the nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Breedlove added. Discussions of exact numbers are still continuing.

Germany, the top NATO-country contributor, has around 850 troops in Afghanistan, followed by Italy with 760 and about 500 for Turkey, according to the latest NATO data.


Unlike the United States, NATO has never set an end date to its support training mission in Afghanistan. The 6,000-strong force includes troops from some 40 countries, including NATO members, the United States and their allies.

A formal decision is expected to come at NATO's next meeting of its foreign ministers in Brussels in early December, another official told Reuters.

Although Afghan forces have recaptured the strategic northern city of Kunduz, its brief fall to the Taliban last month underscored concerns about the capabilities of Afghanistan's security forces.

A U.S. military strike in Kunduz that hit an Afghan hospital run by Doctors Without Borders, known internationally as Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), also generated international outrage and emphasized the consequences of pulling out of a fragile country too quickly.

President Obama had aimed to withdraw all but a small U.S. force before leaving office by training and equipping local forces to battle the Taliban.

Instead, he'll keep the current force of 9,800 through most of 2016 before beginning to trim levels from 2017.

Washington has spent around $65 billion on training and arming the struggling Afghan security forces of about 350,000 personnel.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter is preparing a U.S. funding request to sustain those troops in 2017 "and beyond."