Tweet
Afghanistan: Substantial US withdrawal slips to 2014. By Jan Assakzai
Afghanistan: Substantial US withdrawal slips to 2014. By Jan Assakzai
The international Conference in Kabul was perhaps the first international gathering of high profile foreign dignitaries that was prepared and organised by Afghans themselves. The security of the conference was ensured by Afghan security forces showing their ability to host such a mega event on Afghan soil.
Interestingly, the conference itself was notable for focusing more on the time frame for readiness of Afghan security forces than on the US draw down deadline of 2011. Reading between the lines, the conference scaled down all the talk of perceived unceremonious US withdrawal by 2011, rendering it to a more symbolic beginning of the draw down process than substantive withdrawal.
Some observers even went as far as to say that the US withdrawal of 2011 effectively slipped to 2014. However, the caveat for the qualification of this assertion is that substantial withdrawal will definitely have to wait behind 2011 and 2012.
Another development at the conference was the emphasis on the preparedness of the Afghan security forces by 2014. President Karzai said that Afghan security forces will take over security responsibilities by 2014. Further explaining the point, the NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the shift to Afghan control would happen slowly, based on “conditions, not calendars.” International forces in Afghanistan will transition to a supportive role once Afghans take over responsibility for security, and the focus will be on a gradual transition, rather than a strict timeline. He said that the goal is for an “irreversible” move towards security led by the Afghans.
This deadline clarified the confusion over the security responsibilities in the post-US withdrawal scenario. It also helped map out the steps that need to be taken by Kabul and Washington between now and then. It is though an ambitious target to achieve within three to four years, yet will enable Afghanistan to have a relatively robust security forces by then.
Of course many observers would envisage that the US would still have some kind of military presence even beyond 2014 to back up Afghan security forces and if need be join them in a combat role. In this regard, Washington was clearly aware of the doubts of its allies when the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the Conference that US will remain involved in Afghanistan.
She also tried to slightly water down the 2011 deadline by saying that a transition to Afghan leadership was too critical to be put off indefinitely. She maintained that the July 2011 date for the beginning of a withdrawal increases the sense of urgency adding that it will not mark the end of international troops’ involvement in the country or the abandonment of a long-term mission toward stability and peace.
But clearly the US administration has eyes on President Obama’s presidential elections in 2012 so she needed to stick to the already set deadline. Asides, presidential election of 2012, the US cannot afford to stay indefinitely in Afghanistan. Washington needs to restore its military capability in the international system and for this purpose it needs to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as it can manage.
Thus it envisages a greater role for the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan to help stabilise the country after the withdrawal of US forces. The Conference in a way threw the ball into the court of countries like Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and India particularly, to make a contribution to the peace and stability of Afghanistan.
The challenge now for Karzai government is how to balance its relations with the competing interest of neighbouring countries while also satisfying the concerns of domestic pressure groups who are all pulling Kabul government in different directions - a daunting task indeed.
As the US has firm eyes on successful conclusion of the draw down between 2011 and 2014, it will rely more on regional cooperation and also be more open to regional accommodation as well.
Other important development of the Conference was: donors’ renewed commitment and aid pledges to Afghan government. The donors also promised that Afghan government would be allowed to spend 50 per cent of the aid money that goes into the country, within two years. At the moment, Afghanistan receives around $14 billion in aid annually but Afghan government manages only 20 per cent of the total money.
President Karzai assured donors that government has established mechanism to check corruption addressing the concerns of the donor counties on corruption issue. The Conference emphasised on political strategy in dealing with the Taliban insurgency. The representatives of 40 countries clearly endorsed Karzai’s initiative to co-opt reconcilable Taliban and talk to the Taliban leadership as well.
Noteworthy were the comments of the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She for first time emphasised that while Washington was still moving towards putting the Haqqani network on its terrorist list, the US would not necessarily rule out Afghan efforts to reconcile with it. Washington has long been opposed to the idea of holding talks with the Haqqani network.
Since the US needs to accommodate regional interest, particularly of Pakistan, it has accepted the idea of talks with the senior Taliban, including Haqqani network. And for this purpose it needs the support of third parties like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to make it happen.
As the US forces’ surge completes this summer, Washington though would by trying hard to improve its bargaining position vis a vis the Taliban to pursue talks from the position of strength. However, the Taliban have still pretty much maintained disciplinee and so far have less incentive to talk.
But the Kabul Conference indirectly helped clear the thick cloud surrounding the US draw down time table, bolstered the position of Afghan government and served as face saving opportunity for fatigued and demoralised allies to remain engaged in Afghanistan in terms of financial and technical support for Afghan security forces, if not militarily. Now is the show time for all the stake holders.
janassakzai200@gamil.com
The international Conference in Kabul was perhaps the first international gathering of high profile foreign dignitaries that was prepared and organised by Afghans themselves. The security of the conference was ensured by Afghan security forces showing their ability to host such a mega event on Afghan soil.
Interestingly, the conference itself was notable for focusing more on the time frame for readiness of Afghan security forces than on the US draw down deadline of 2011. Reading between the lines, the conference scaled down all the talk of perceived unceremonious US withdrawal by 2011, rendering it to a more symbolic beginning of the draw down process than substantive withdrawal.
Some observers even went as far as to say that the US withdrawal of 2011 effectively slipped to 2014. However, the caveat for the qualification of this assertion is that substantial withdrawal will definitely have to wait behind 2011 and 2012.
Another development at the conference was the emphasis on the preparedness of the Afghan security forces by 2014. President Karzai said that Afghan security forces will take over security responsibilities by 2014. Further explaining the point, the NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the shift to Afghan control would happen slowly, based on “conditions, not calendars.” International forces in Afghanistan will transition to a supportive role once Afghans take over responsibility for security, and the focus will be on a gradual transition, rather than a strict timeline. He said that the goal is for an “irreversible” move towards security led by the Afghans.
This deadline clarified the confusion over the security responsibilities in the post-US withdrawal scenario. It also helped map out the steps that need to be taken by Kabul and Washington between now and then. It is though an ambitious target to achieve within three to four years, yet will enable Afghanistan to have a relatively robust security forces by then.
Of course many observers would envisage that the US would still have some kind of military presence even beyond 2014 to back up Afghan security forces and if need be join them in a combat role. In this regard, Washington was clearly aware of the doubts of its allies when the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the Conference that US will remain involved in Afghanistan.
She also tried to slightly water down the 2011 deadline by saying that a transition to Afghan leadership was too critical to be put off indefinitely. She maintained that the July 2011 date for the beginning of a withdrawal increases the sense of urgency adding that it will not mark the end of international troops’ involvement in the country or the abandonment of a long-term mission toward stability and peace.
But clearly the US administration has eyes on President Obama’s presidential elections in 2012 so she needed to stick to the already set deadline. Asides, presidential election of 2012, the US cannot afford to stay indefinitely in Afghanistan. Washington needs to restore its military capability in the international system and for this purpose it needs to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as it can manage.
Thus it envisages a greater role for the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan to help stabilise the country after the withdrawal of US forces. The Conference in a way threw the ball into the court of countries like Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and India particularly, to make a contribution to the peace and stability of Afghanistan.
The challenge now for Karzai government is how to balance its relations with the competing interest of neighbouring countries while also satisfying the concerns of domestic pressure groups who are all pulling Kabul government in different directions - a daunting task indeed.
As the US has firm eyes on successful conclusion of the draw down between 2011 and 2014, it will rely more on regional cooperation and also be more open to regional accommodation as well.
Other important development of the Conference was: donors’ renewed commitment and aid pledges to Afghan government. The donors also promised that Afghan government would be allowed to spend 50 per cent of the aid money that goes into the country, within two years. At the moment, Afghanistan receives around $14 billion in aid annually but Afghan government manages only 20 per cent of the total money.
President Karzai assured donors that government has established mechanism to check corruption addressing the concerns of the donor counties on corruption issue. The Conference emphasised on political strategy in dealing with the Taliban insurgency. The representatives of 40 countries clearly endorsed Karzai’s initiative to co-opt reconcilable Taliban and talk to the Taliban leadership as well.
Noteworthy were the comments of the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She for first time emphasised that while Washington was still moving towards putting the Haqqani network on its terrorist list, the US would not necessarily rule out Afghan efforts to reconcile with it. Washington has long been opposed to the idea of holding talks with the Haqqani network.
Since the US needs to accommodate regional interest, particularly of Pakistan, it has accepted the idea of talks with the senior Taliban, including Haqqani network. And for this purpose it needs the support of third parties like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to make it happen.
As the US forces’ surge completes this summer, Washington though would by trying hard to improve its bargaining position vis a vis the Taliban to pursue talks from the position of strength. However, the Taliban have still pretty much maintained disciplinee and so far have less incentive to talk.
But the Kabul Conference indirectly helped clear the thick cloud surrounding the US draw down time table, bolstered the position of Afghan government and served as face saving opportunity for fatigued and demoralised allies to remain engaged in Afghanistan in terms of financial and technical support for Afghan security forces, if not militarily. Now is the show time for all the stake holders.
janassakzai200@gamil.com
Paakis might have got fever today.
Comment