Nato To Hold Crunch Afghanistan Talks As Obama Weighs Military 'Zero Option' 2-24-14

2/24/2014 Nato to hold crunch Afghanistan talks as Obama weighs military ' zero option' | World news | theguardian.
com
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/nato-talks-afghanistan-obama-zero-option 1/8
News US World Sports Comment Culture Business Money Environment Science Travel Tech
Media Life & style Data
Search
On the Guardian today
What the hell is Barack Obama's
presidency for?
Twitch Plays Pokmon: live gaming's
latest big hit
Harold Ramis: Ghostbusters' Dr Egon
Spengler was comedy's GrandDude
Russia denounces Ukraine 'terrorists'
and west over Yanukovich ousting
News
World news
Afghanistan
Nato to hold crunch Afghanistan
talks as Obama weighs military
'zero option'
Allies to discuss military presence in Afghanistan
amid growing acceptance that Karzai will not sign
bilateral security agreement
Email
Tweet 76
0
Share 27
Share 0
Dan Roberts and Spencer Ackerman in Washington and Emma Graham-Harrison in Kabul
theguardian.com, Monday 24 February 2014 11.10 EST
Jump to comments (21)
A formal US order to plan for a full withdrawal would mark a significant
escalation in Americas war of words with Karzai. Photograph: Watan
Yar/EPA
Nato defence ministers will meet this week to discuss
its future military presence in Afghanistan as Barack
Obama weighs whether to order the Pentagon to begin
preparations for a total withdrawal of all US forces at
the end of this year.
The crunch meeting in Brussels on Wednesday
comes amid growing acceptance in Washington that
Afghan president Hamid Karzai is unlikely to sign a
bilateral security agreement (BSA) finalised last
November for a residual US security force to remain
after the bulk of its troops pull out in 2014.
Afghanistan has elections scheduled for April to
Comment is free
Technology
Film
World news
World news
Afghanistan US
military Barack
Obama US foreign
policy
More news
Find us on Facebook
The Guardian
1,607,363 people like The Guardian.
Facebook social plugin
Like
Don't show again Hide
Edition:
UK US AU Sign in Beta
About us Subscribe
2/24/2014 Nato to hold crunch Afghanistan talks as Obama weighs military ' zero option' | World news | theguardian.com
Harold Ramis, Ghostbusters star and
Groundhog Day director, dies aged 69
No reliable evidence wind farms harm
health, peak research body says
Today's best video
Inside ousted Ukrainian president Viktor
Yanukovych's palace
Ukrainians find bears, wild boars and
expensive champagne as they tour the luxury
residence of their former president Viktor
Yanukovych
Everyone's in love with
Jennifer Lawrence
Is it possible to love
her any more? A
song by written by
Joe Stilgoe
147 comments
Why Nebraska should
win best picture Oscar
Catherine Shoard
drinks to Alexander
Payne's black-and-
white family comedy
37 comments
Bill Hicks on religious
cults
Previously unseen
1993 footage of the
late American
standup
355 comments
choose a successor to Karzai, who as incumbent
cannot stand again. But a complicated two-round
voting system means there is little expectation a new
leader will be in office before the end of the summer.
Instead, the US is increasingly focused on making a
deal with whoever succeeds him. All of the top
contenders have backed the BSA, but by the time the
winner comes into office, Nato may only have a few
months to plan its 2015 deployment.
Although the last troops could still be withdrawn
relatively quickly if needed, the political impasse
threatens to frustrate the complex process of scaling
down the Nato presence particularly for allies that
depend on the US for logistical support.
As a result, the White House has been considering
whether to order to its military commanders to include
the so-called zero option in its planning scenarios,
according to a senior official speaking on background.
Though symbolic to the extent that Pentagon planners
have long looked at a range of possible options for
troop numbers, the formal order to plan for a full
withdrawal would mark a significant escalation in the
US war of words with Karzai.
Administration officials say that as of the middle of last
week, president Obama had yet to make a final
determination on the order but is keen to demonstrate
that he is not bluffing when he says the US would pull
out entirely if the BSA is not signed.
Military officials, who have worked through months of
uncertainty over the future US role in Afghanistan,
agree that the forthcoming Nato meeting represents a
key moment in the tussle with Karzai.
Without question, the issues surrounding the future of
the Afghan mission will certainly be discussed in
Brussels, to include the challenges of retrograde and
force posture faced by all Allies, said John Kirby, the
Pentagon press secretary.
We long said that we would like a BSA as soon as
possible. Absent that, we would have to start planning
to withdraw all our forces by the end of the year, Kirby
added. Im not going to put any timelines on that.
Wed like a BSA as soon as possible.
The prospect of the US retreating entirely from
Afghanistan without being able to guarantee a
continued counter-terrorism role would carry significant
risks for the White House, which is conscious that the
Film
Politics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Last 24 hours
Russia
denounces Ukraine
'terrorists' and west
over Yanukovich
ousting
The homeless Hungarian lottery winner
who is giving his money to charity
Uganda politicians celebrate passing of
anti-gay laws
When rebels toured the palace: how does
Ukraine's presidential compound measure
up?
Is San Francisco losing its soul?
More most viewed
Last 24 hours
Schapelle Corby
raid: AFP to
consult Seven
before looking at
hard drives
Labor records best Newspoll result since
2010 as health cuts loom in May politics
live
Manus guards let residents into centre as
extra manpower, says G4S witness
Young demand rise in living standards as
Cambodia senses a political spring
Labor party bounces back in latest
Newspoll in wake of Manus death
All today's stories
On World news
US has spent 13 years and 2,000 soldiers have died
trying to stabilise the country.
However, it believes that US public opinion is
supportive of the withdrawal process and would be
sympathetic to arguments that a continued presence is
not wanted by the Afghans.
Security setbacks in Iraq following a similar failure to
agree a US presence there have led to relatively little
domestic criticism, despite the recent symbolic loss to
insurgents of Fallujah.
The White House acknowledges it would be more
difficult to carry out successful counter-terrorism
operations against international militants along the
lawless border with Pakistan if they do not have some
troop presence on the ground, but privately argues
such a role is not impossible even without drone
bases in the country.
In Afghanistan, Karzais about-turn on the BSA late last
year took most of the country, including portions of his
own cabinet, by surprise.
The presidents national security adviser Rangin
Dadfar Spanta had already warned parliament that if
the deal was not signed, the country would be left to
the wolves a warning about Afghanistans fate in a
region of wealthier and more populous neighbours
keen to to have a say on policy in Kabul.
Most senior Afghans have not forgotten the fate of the
last government backed by a global superpower.
Despite forecasts of rapid collapse after Soviet troops
left in 1989, President Mohammad Najibullah held off
mujahidden fighters until 1992. But when the
disintegration of the Soviet Union ended funding for
the military, the government fell within weeks.
So worries in Kabul are not so much about the troops
that the US may or may not leave behind. Without their
training and support the Afghan army will probably be
less professional, and certainly struggle in critical
areas from intelligence gathering to air power, but
would probably still be able to hold off the Taliban.
The concern is about the money that the soldiers, and
the drone bases they would support, bring with them.
Few in Kabul think the west and particularly
Washington would be willing to provide a promised
$8bn a year in military and development spending if
they have been effectively booted out by the Afghan
government. Without the troops, there is no money,
Most viewed Latest
Tweet
StumbleUpon
Email

Open for comments. Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
All comments Staff replies Guardian picks
said one diplomat.
The leading presidential candidates have all backed
the strategic pact, with the 2009 runner-up Abdullah
Abdullah slamming Karzai for feeding isolationist
sentiment in the US.
His main rivals have openly said they would sign the
deal. Zalmai Rassoul, a former foreign minister
believed to have Hamid Karzais blessing, has
described it as good for Afghanistan and promised a
signature if he wins.
Former finance minister and World Bank technocrat
Ashraf Ghani helped hammer out the pact and
described it as the source of Afghanistans national
sovereignty, underlining that it gives only the Afghan
state the right to use force.
But after years of aborted ultimatums on issues from
night raids on homes to control of prisoners all areas
where the US has ultimately bowed to Karzais
demands American deadlines have limited credibility
in Kabul.
There are fears among those familiar with the climate
in Washington that Afghan officials are underestimating
the extent of American disengagement from the war.
We dont believe there is a zero option, Karzais
spokesman told journalists last year after the
presidents surprise retreat from the long-term
strategic partnership.
Although that infuriated many in Washington, the
decision of top officials there to set Karzai a deadline
for a decision on the BSA, only to back away from it
when it passed unheeded, strengthened the belief of
the Afghan leaders inner circle that the US was
ultimately committed to keeping troops in Afghanistan
regardless of the political and financial cost.
Get the Guardian's daily US email
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and
commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Sign up for the daily email
Share
Share
21 comments. Showing 50 conversations, threads collapsed , sorted oldest first
snix
The Americans don@t leave once your part of their Military industrial Empire ,as they
would put it its not in their best interests. That's not good for the rest of the world as
there exceptional warmongering and espionage spreads chaos and death which of
course is profitable ,if you have invested with this in mind .
24 February 2014 4:30pm
Mike5000
Why can't Poodle Cameron do as much for Britain?
1
2 PEOPLE, 2 COMMENTS
damandblast
This isn't going to end well.
2
ForwardThinking damandblast
It didnt start well, the middle bit was less than satisfactory as well.....
7
IllWind
How I love the bewilderment of Americans! Their frustration that they cannot threaten
sanctions. Not even more drone strikes will bring Karzai to his knees. What a super
power can do in face of such an enemy? Just lick its wounds!!
2
johnandanne
The way the USA operates is that it needs Countries where it can perform it's acts
(directly and indirectly) of division which ultimately means deaths, injuries and
displacements. The main benefactors are big business and arms manufacturers.
As long as the USA is permitted to carry on, to them it doesn't matter where the
current or next theatre of war is. Afghanistan will disappear if they can no longer
make money out it, but will be replaced by other Countries forever until the World
says 'No More'
6
ForwardThinking johnandanne
Forever it is then.
3
monkofgreatrenown
C'mon NATO: just walk away.
Let Afghanistan return to backwardness and obscurantism.
It was folly to attempt 'nation building' for people who'd rather live in the 7th Century.
8
Haynonnynonny monkofgreatrenown
Use of cell phones in Afghanistan went up 99% the last 10 years.
Education, for girls and boys, up 80%. The youth often ware designer jeans,
and watch a version of American Idol.
Zepp monkofgreatrenown
Yeah, obviously they don't appreciate enlightened sorts like yourself
occupying their country and bombing their weddings.
5
Cavalle monkofgreatrenown
What makes you think that the Afghans want to live in the 7th century? Are
you confusing the rules of the Taliban with the wishes of the people?
3
vcbhutani
US decision makers do not seem to know their own minds. They should not lay
down deadlines if they are not deadlines. To lay down a deadline and then behave as
if there was no deadline does not enhance US reputation for decisive and
businesslike attitude to international relations. As it is, the world is not full of
admiration for USA's capacity for continued world leadership: recent decades have
seen USA retreat from such a role. Now, if no one in USA is able to think coherently
and act like a world leader, then there is no point in expecting Karzai's successor to
sign the BSA. Now Nato leaders are about to meet but can they do anything
meaningful if Karzai remains adamant, as it seems he will? Then, Hagel is taking US
armed power back to a 1940 level. Perhaps that is as clear a message as there can
be that USA is either unable or unwilling to meet the costs of keeping world order
going. Now, Afghanistan itself will mean an annual bill of $8b. Where will that money
come from? Why should the world care so much about keeping Afghanistan's head
above water, especially when no one in Afghanistan is inclined to work in a spirit of
self-help? What are the stakes if Afghanistan does not remain on its feet? Its
immediate neighbours are not too friendly or too caring. USA and its Nato allies have
to pay the cost of wrong choices of the past dating back to the immediate aftermath
of 9/11. The chief sufferers will be the people of Afghanistan, especially in the
absence of enlightened leadership. V. C. Bhutani, Edinburgh, 24 Feb 2014, 1819
GMT
1
greysky
Come on chaps, admit it, 'drawdown' means surrender, and that's the truth, no
matter how the PR people spin it.
bloggod greysky
hardly. it means "retreat" and pay for the past decade plus of waste and
genocide of the entire region.
Zepp bloggod
"Drawdown" is easier to say and spell than "Afghanistanisation"
bloggod
"the White House, which is conscious that the US has spent 13 years and 2,000
soldiers"
_
2
_
Quit "spending soldiers" as if they were pawns, or poker chips.
Industry wants the resources of Afghanistan? Give them a premium price.
NATO allows opium poppy production to skyrocket?
Go figure.
Zepp bloggod
Quit "spending soldiers" as if they were pawns, or poker chips.
Isn't that exactly what they are, though?
ID7776906
Karzai`s playing NATO like a Barbary Coast Pirate.
1
robingeorge
Enough is enough. It is time to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan. The efforts to
train a protective Afghan army and police force,has been continually compromised by
the Taliban infiltration into the ranks. If that cannot be contained , what is the point in
even allowing the allied forces that task. Far to much of our GDP both American and
European has been plundered and wasted. Thousands of killed and maimed troupes
and civilians. The eventuality of a Taliban Afghanistan government is both logical and
clearly wanted by the majority. The task was to terminate Osama, that has been
accomplished. We have excellent imagery from space monitoring the region. Drones
can be used to deal with any further build up or training grounds. 13 years is long
enough.
4
DocHollywood
The Afghanistan War is opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans,
Europeans, and Afghanis.
CNN Poll: Afghanistan war arguably most unpopular in U.S. history
The invaders remain in Afghanistan against the will of the people.
It's a violation of democratic principles. It's a failure. It's illegal:
The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of
US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another
country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves.
Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded
Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men 15
from Saudi Arabia did, and there was no imminent threat that
Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The
council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use
military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal.
Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the
National Lawyers Guild
By our own laws and principles, the war and occupation is the supreme international
crime.
Now the West is considering a "zero option" when it should be convening a war
crimes tribunal.
4
Cavalle
I hate the warmongering that the US is prone to. I was angry when we went to war in
;
World news
Afghanistan Barack
Obama US foreign
policy US military
Afghanistan troop cuts
will likely lead to Taliban
surge, study warns
20 Feb 2014
Insurgency likely to
swell following
upcoming US and
Nato military
withdrawal,
challenging Natos
2012 expectations
13 Feb 2014
Karzai criticises lack of
US respect for Afghan
sovereignty as relations
worsen
13 Feb 2014
Afghanistan releases 65
prisoners against
objections from US
11 Feb 2014
Afghan president Karzai
unlikely to sign US troop
pact, says intelligence
chief
Chuck Hagel stresses
US foreign policy shift
from military might to
diplomacy
1 Feb 2014
Defence secretary
says US is moving
off 'a 13-year war
footing' in its
approach to
international affairs
Related information
Open for comments. Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
I hate the warmongering that the US is prone to. I was angry when we went to war in
Afghanistan, and I did not appreciate that we had armed them to begin with, decades
ago.
HOWEVER, I have Afghan friends there who will be brutalized if the west pulls out.
They will be savaged. The Taliban is not going to ignore all the men and women and
children who broke their laws while the US was present to protect them, and
influence their behavior. Which we did. We encouraged all of the things that will now
get those people maimed or killed..
There will not only be a crackdown with a return to orthodoxy, there will also be
retaliations to women who had the audacity to get an education, young girls who
went to school, men who shaved their beards. And on, and on. It's a quandary.
We ignored what Hitler did until we could not ignore it any longer, and as a nation we
are proud of helping to end that holocaust. We are doing the same thing now if we
say, "oh let those Afghans sort it out themselves. Let them live in the 7th century if
they want to. It's not our problem." I agree, and yet....
It was our presence that gave many Afghans the courage to buck the Taliban
system, and now we're just going to throw them under the bus? I too, think we
should not have gone, but we did. And I think that puts some responsibility on our
shoulders to not just throw up our hands and walk away.
I am basically a pacifist, but I would have killed Hitler if I were there. And I would kill
as many Taliban as it took to rescue an entire country from the brutal grip of their
regime.
License/buy our cont ent | Privacy policy | Terms of service | US advert ising | A - Z index | About us
2014 Guardian News and Media Limit ed or it s affiliat ed companies. All right s reserved.

Nato To Hold Crunch Afghanistan Talks As Obama Weighs Military 'Zero Option' 2-24-14

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Nato To Hold Crunch Afghanistan Talks As Obama Weighs Military 'Zero Option' 2-24-14

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2/24/2014 Nato to hold crunch Afghanistan talks as Obama weighs military ' zero option' | World news | theguardian.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai