U.S. might not leave any troops in Afghanistan after 2014
By McClatchy Newspapers
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2013, 8:48 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The White House said for the first time on Tuesday that it's possible that no U.S. troops will be left in Afghanistan after 2014. The statement appeared to be a bid to pressure Afghan President Hamid Karzai to accept American terms for keeping forces in his country to train Afghan security forces and prevent a return of al-Qaida.
The acknowledgement that a “zero option” of troops is being considered was made a day before Karzai begins a state visit to Washington that concludes with talks on Friday at the White House with President Obama.
The United States is seeking an accord under which any troops remaining in Afghanistan after December 2014 — when a pullout of the U.S.-led NATO combat force is to be completed — would be subject to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, not Afghan law.
The Obama administration is believed to want provisions allowing special forces to launch raids against al-Qaida or other foreign terrorist groups without Karzai's permission and for the United States to detain high-value suspected extremists.
Karzai is demanding that the United States turn over high-value terrorist suspects that it retained last year after it turned over control of a major detention center to the Afghan government. He has long demanded a say on night raids by special forces, and he's demanding the closure of small U.S. military outposts in the countryside.
Obama is considering a number of options for maintaining American troops in Afghanistan after 2014 to train Afghan security forces and mount operations to prevent a return by al-Qaida and other foreign extremists, said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.
The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Marine Gen. John Allen, reportedly has presented options calling for keeping between 6,000 and 20,000 troops in the country.
Rhodes, however, confirmed that Obama could decide not to keep any soldiers there.
“We wouldn't rule out any option,” Rhodes said. “We're not guided by the goal of a certain number of U.S. troops in the country. We're guided by the objective that the president has set: disrupt, dismantle, defeat al-Qaida.”
He said that those objectives “could be met in a range of ways,” an apparent reference to the possibility of using pilotless drone aircraft based outside Afghanistan to hit al-Qaida targets and using private contractors or other countries to train Afghan security forces.
Douglas Lute, a retired Army general who is Obama's top coordinator on Afghanistan policy, noted in the same briefing that Obama decided against keeping a military training mission in Iraq after its government refused to allow its members to be covered by U.S. military law.
“As we know from our Iraq experience, if there are no authorities granted by the sovereign state, then there's no room for a follow-on U.S. military mission,” Lute said.
Both said they expected no decision on the troop level for several months.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Expats renounce citizenship over U.S. tax hassles
- Obama gets in some golf on family trip to Key Largo
- Parents of ‘spoiled’ teen urge her to return home
- Wikileaks founder teases about more secrets to be released
- Obama losing close adviser to end 9 years of service
- Immigrant detainees on hunger strike
- Oklahoma governor’s daughter regrets wearing Native American headdress
- John Denver tune finally an ‘official’ W.Va. state song
- El Nino could bring relief to U.S.
- California man named as bitcoin creator denies involvement
- Spyware in government computers ‘has Russian paw prints all over it’