Opinion After 2014

The essential purpose of the SPA was to put in place a credible,long-term American political commitment to the post-Taliban Afghanistan. This was to include formal arrangements for a residual American military presence in Afghanistan after the US forces end their combat role in 2014.

The US armed forces that stay on in Afghanistan are expected to focus on training and other missions to strengthen the Afghan National Army. The SPA was also designed to facilitate the operation of US armed forces from a handful of military bases in Afghanistan. The military facilities would also provide the much needed infrastructure to attack the sanctuaries of the Taliban and its allies trying to destabilise Afghanistan. It was indeed President Hamid Karzai’s idea that the US and international forces should stay at least 10 years after 2014 to ensure the security of Afghanistan against the Taliban-led insurgency.

The idea of a residual military presence is being contested in both the United States and Afghanistan. Many of Kabul’s neighbours,especially Pakistan,Iran,Russia and China,are also wary of any long-term US military presence in Afghanistan.

One set of differences between Washington and Kabul pertains to the size and sophistication of the US military support to Afghanistan. Washington is hesitant to transfer advanced military equipment or help Kabul develop an air force. Karzai wants long-term US financial commitments to sustain a large Afghan national armed force. The US and its allies are not prepared,however,to offer open-ended financial guarantees.

Karzai’s rope trick

Meanwhile,there is growing scepticism in Afghanistan about the efficacy of American military presence. A similar dynamic prevented an agreement between Washington and Baghdad on long-term American military presence in Iraq.

At a loya jirga,or a grand assembly of tribal leaders,convened in Kabul this week to discuss the strategic partnership with the United States and reconciliation with the Taliban,Karzai attempted the great subcontinental rope trick.

On the one hand he made a vigorous pitch for extended international support for his regime,in the form of a long-term strategic partnership with the US and its allies. On the other,Karzai positioned himself as a nationalist,seeking honour and dignity in an equitable political relationship with the United States.

In a fiery speech on Wednesday,Karzai declared Western powers should not “interfere in our internal affairs.” He added,“The relationship between us and the Americans should be like two independent countries,definitely independent.”

“We want to have a strong partnership with the US and NATO,but with conditions,” he said. “We want our national sovereignty,and an end to night raids and to the detention of our countrymen.”

Karzai knows he badly needs the US forces based in Afghanistan in order to beat back the Taliban,the Haqqani network and other insurgent groups operating out of sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet,he does not want to provoke his neighbours,to whom US bases in Afghanistan are unacceptable. Addressing this concern on Wednesday,Karzai promised that he would not allow the US forces to launch strikes against other regional powers from “Afghan soil”.

Obama’s right flank

Meanwhile,many in Washington are asking if it is worth America’s while to prolong its costly and ineffectual military involvement in Afghanistan. Even the Republicans,who tend to defend foreign military interventions,are beginning to grow tired of the Afghan war. Amidst the persistent high unemployment in the US,foreign policy has taken a backseat in the debates among the Republican contenders for presidential nomination this autumn.

To the extent that Afghanistan has figured in the debate,few in the Republican Party are saying that Obama must stay on in Afghanistan until the job is done. This,in turn,opens up more space for Obama to downsize the American commitment to Afghanistan.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research,Delhi