Differing Afghan, U.S. priorities could sabotage proposed security agreement

FABRIZIO BENSCH/REUTERS - Afghan National Police officers line up after their training session at a training centre in Kunduz, northern Afghanistan, on Dec. 3, 2012.

KABUL — When Afghan and American negotiators sat down here last month to begin talks on a bilateral security agreement that would define and govern a long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, their meeting was cordial, vague and brief.

When the two sides meet again this month for more substantive discussions, each will begin to lay out a competing set of military concerns, political constraints and legal priorities that could severely test their fledgling postwar partnership, possibly to the point of failure.

Gallery

Latest stories from Foreign

World Digest: May 21, 2013

Two allies of Georgian president face corruption charges; 13 dead in fresh violence across Iraq.

Iranian presidential candidates announced; Rafsanjani out

Iranian presidential candidates announced; Rafsanjani out

Conservatives dominate the list of eight approved candidates for the June 14 election.

Israel warns Syria to halt attacks after exchange in the Golan Heights

Israel warns Syria to halt attacks after exchange in the Golan Heights

The clash took place along a cease-fire line in the region, raising fears of a spillover from the Syrian war.

Speed limit proposal for autobahn strikes some as simply un-German

Speed limit proposal for autobahn strikes some as simply un-German

In the land of BMW and Porsche, the right to drive fast on the highway is viewed by many as inalienable.

State Dept. official: Iranian soldiers are fighting for Assad in Syria

State Dept. official: Iranian soldiers are fighting for Assad in Syria

The U.S. allegation is a new acknowledgment that the Syrian conflict has become a regional war.

For the Afghan government, which has smarted under a decade of Western military dominance in the fight against Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents, the key will be balancing the desperate need for continued U.S. support of Afghan security forces with the public and political pressure to ensure equality and sovereignty after U.S. combat troops leave Afghanistan in 2014.

“There is no question we would like to see a continued U.S. military presence to strengthen Afghan institutions and assure the Afghan people that the U.S. will be a friend and ally after 2014. But this must be an agreement between two sovereign nations,” said Jawed Ludin, Afghanistan’s deputy foreign minister. “Some see this as being mostly about immunity and jurisdiction, but we see it in the larger context. This is our future at stake.”

For the U.S. government, which has lost more than 2,000 troops in an increasingly unpopular war, the key will be addressing the Afghans’ demand for sovereignty without conceding the right to protect all American forces stationed here in supporting roles from potentially abusive treatment by Afghan authorities or courts.

“As much as I want to get it right in Afghanistan and believe losing would be a national security disaster for the ages, if the Afghans insist on keeping American soldiers in Afghanistan without legal protections . . . I will not vote for one penny, and this war will come to an end,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said at a hearing in Washington last month.

Last year, during similar negotiations about the role and status of U.S. troops in postwar Iraq, the Iraqi government refused to grant legal immunity for any troops. Despite months of efforts to reach a compromise, the issue ultimately killed the agreement, resulting in the hasty departure of all remaining American forces.

In Afghanistan, the issue was starkly dramatized in March, when Robert Bales, a U.S. Army staff sergeant, was detained after a late-night shooting rampage that killed 16 villagers. Afghan leaders argued that Bales should face justice in Afghan courts, but U.S. military officials swiftly returned him to the United States for prosecution.

While the international command headed by Gen. John R. Allen here is working on recommendations for President Obama on the rate of withdrawal for American combat troops, the U.S. negotiating position for the follow-on force is being formulated in Washington. Officials there said that options currently under discussion call for 5,000 to 10,000 troops, including training and logistics experts as well as counterterrorism units.

Loading...

Comments

Add your comment
 
Read what others are saying About Badges