US, Afghanistan begin talks to craft agreement on American footprint in the country.

[ډګروال]

KABUL, Afghanistan – The United States and Afghanistan faced potentially divisive issues such as immunity for U.S. troops as the two sides began talks Thursday on a security agreement that will shape America's military presence in the country after the withdrawal of most foreign combat troops in two years.
However, the talks could last up to a year, and questions about specific military operations or the exact number of U.S. troops that will remain in the country were being put off until later, according to a senior U.S. official. U.S. and Afghan officials also indicated that the issues of legal jurisdiction will be left until later, after easier topics are negotiated. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.
Earlier this week, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the Obama administration expected a decision in the next few weeks on how many U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan after 2014. He added that Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, had developed several options but would not reveal what troop levels were being considered.
It is believed that the United States wants to retain up to 20,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014 to train and support Afghan forces and go after extremists and groups, including al-Qaida. Afghanistan now has about 66,000 U.S. troops and it remains unclear how many will be withdrawn next year as they continue to hand over security to Afghan forces. The foreign military mission is evolving from combat to advising, assisting and training Afghan forces.
The two countries also are grappling with the potentially divisive issues of whether U.S. troops can be prosecuted under Afghan law — an issue that sank America's security deal with Iraq last year — America's military footprint, and what bases and facilities the U.S. will use after 2014.
"The negotiations we just started today will be about the quantity, quality and the condition of the presence of American forces in Afghanistan after 2014," Eklil Hakimi, Afghanistan's ambassador in Washington, told reporters after the one-day meeting.
He and James Warlick, the Obama administration's deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan are leading the talks, which are expected to resume next month.
"This document is intended to provide the legal authorities of our military forces and its civilian component," Warlick said.
The decision on troop levels will depend in part on Afghanistan's desire to allow troops to remain and whether the U.S. receives acceptable legal guarantees for American troops. But the agreement is not expected to be a defense deal and the senior U.S. official said it would not include a security commitment.
The so-called bilateral security agreement follows a deal that was signed last May in Kabul by President Barack Obama and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai — a document that drew the outlines of the broad relationship between their countries after 2014.
In that deal, the United States said it would work with Afghanistan to develop a response if it was ever attacked, but was not committed to help. Washington was committed, however, to supporting Afghanistan's social and economic development, security institutions and regional cooperation through 2024. In turn, Afghanistan promised to strengthen government accountability, transparency and oversight and to protect the human rights of all Afghans, both men and women.
Afghanistan and the United States have tried to defuse regional concerns about the agreement. Afghanistan's neighbor Iran is opposed to any such agreement.
"Both sides clarified that these negotiations are premised on the understanding that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Afghanistan, or a presence that is perceived as a threat to Afghanistan's neighbors," said a joint statement issued after the meeting.
The bilateral security agreement is essentially a status of forces agreement and will include all the authorities needed to operate military forces in Afghanistan, including taxation, visas and other technical issues. It does not need to be ratified by the U.S. Congress. The U.S. has similar agreements with dozens of countries.
In Iraq, a similar deal fell apart after U.S. officials were unable to reach an agreement with the Iraqis on legal issues and troop immunity that would have allowed a small training and counterterrorism force to remain there.
Karzai said last month that the issue of soldiers being protected from prosecution in Afghanistan could be a problem in the talks. He has said Afghanistan might demand prosecutions in some cases. The issue took on new meaning after Staff Sgt. Robert Bales allegedly attacked Afghan civilians in two villages in southern Afghanistan. The American soldier faces 16 counts of premeditated murder and six counts of attempted murder in the March 11 attacks against civilians. A preliminary hearing was held this week at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/15...#ixzz2CJKGMAdr

[ډګروال]

Next Afghanistan Commander Supports Troops There Past 2014



Foreign Policy:

The next commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is prepared to testify that he wants to see a robust U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan after the end of 2014, as U.S. and Afghan negotiators began formal work on that troop presence Thursday in Kabul.

Gen. Joe Dunford will be the sole nominee appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning. President Barack Obama has chosen Dunford to succeed Gen. John Allen to lead the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Allen, who was nominated to be the next Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), will not testify today because he is under investigation for engaging in a potentially inappropriate e-mail relationship with Tampa socialite (and "honorary consul" of South Korea) Jill Kelley.

According to his written answers to questions posed in advance by senators, obtained by The Cable, Dunford is ready to tell Congress that he supports U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan for a host of missions in 2015 and beyond, which matches the Obama administration's plans, despite some high-level administration statements to the contrary.

"In my view our overall objective in Afghanistan after 2014 will be to sustain our hard-won security gains after 2014 so that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists," Dunford wrote to the senators. "To accomplish this objective, the primary missions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan should be to (1) train, advise, and assist the ANSF; (2) provide support to civilian agencies, and (3) conduct counter-terrorism operations. This mission set will include force protection for our brave young men and women and, as available, the provision of in extremis support for our Afghan forces."

During his debate with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Vice President Joe Biden said that U.S. forces would leave Afghanistan at the end of 2014.

"[Ryan] and the governor say it's based on conditions, which means ‘it depends.' It does not depend for us. It is the responsibility of the Afghans to take care of their own security," Biden said. "We are leaving in 2014. Period."

Only days later, State Department officials explained that the U.S. and Afghan governments were preparing to start negotiations on a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that would establish the size and role of the U.S. troop mission in 2015. The BSA is a follow-up agreement based on the Strategic Partnership Agreement Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed in May, which promised an ongoing U.S. commitment to Afghanistan through 2024.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Oct. 3 that James Warlick, the deputy to Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, will be the lead U.S. negotiator, while Karzai's Ambassador to Washington Eklil Hakimi leads the negotiations for the Afghan side. Those negotiations began Thursday must be completed within one year.

"The Strategic Partnership Agreement negotiated last spring included the provisions for: continued U.S. access to, and use of, Afghan facilities for the purposes of countering terrorism; continuing to train the Afghan National Security Forces; and other mutually agreed activities to advance shared security interests," Dunford wrote to the senators. "The BSA should provide a foundation for enduring defense cooperation between our two countries. The key issues that need to be addressed in the conclusion of the BSA should include the nature and scope of the future presence and operational authorities of U.S. forces in Afghanistan; access to and use of Afghan facilities by U.S. forces beyond 2014; and, securing adequate status protections for U.S. Department of Defense military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan."

Dunford also wrote that he believes that the surge of U.S. forces to Afghanistan was a success and that the withdrawal of those surge forces by Obama this year was appropriate. His overall take on the Afghanistan war is that the trend lines are positive and that the insurgency is weakened.

"I support the President's decision and the reasoning behind that decision to recover 33,000 U.S. surge forces by October 2012. The purpose of the surge was to reverse the Taliban's momentum and increase the size and capability of the ANSF. The surge accomplished these objectives and created the conditions to initiate the process of Transition," he wrote.

"Although the insurgency remains resilient and determined, Coalition and ANSF operations have degraded insurgent capabilities and freedom of movement in much of the country. The insurgency failed to meet its established goals for the 2012 fighting season and enemy initiated attacks have largely been driven out of key population centers, a central aim of the Campaign. Additionally, security conditions remain relatively stable in areas that have transitioned and, on average, show a decrease in violence."

Dunford wrote that he also supports the current NATO-approved plan to shift over lead responsibility for all of Afghanistan's territories to the Afghan National Security Forces by mid-2013, at which point international forces will shift to a role of training, assisting, and advising the Afghans. That interim milestone was set at the Lisbon summit of 2010 as followed up in the NATO Chicago summit earlier this year.

But he also believes that until the end of 2014, the Afghan security forces will not be able to operate completely on their own and will need American "enablers" to help them fly planes and helicopters, do engineering, counter roadside bombs, and to help them with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, known as ISR.

The pace at which U.S. forces withdraw between now and the end of 2014 should be determined by the conditions on the ground and several other factors, according to Dunford.

"I agree that there will be further troop reductions through 2014 but the pace of withdrawal over the next 25 months will depend on several variables, including progress of the campaign, the state of the insurgency, and the readiness of the ANSF to assume full security leadership and responsibility to the Afghan government by the end of 2014," he wrote.