Negotiations for after U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan at standstill
WASHINGTON — Closed-door negotiations to determine the American military mission in Afghanistan after 2014 have stalled over American demands to conduct lethal counter-terrorism operations and Afghan insistence that Washington guarantee support in event of cross-border attacks.
President Hamid Karzai is balking at Obama administration demands that U.S. special operations troops and the CIA be allowed to capture or kill suspected terrorists once most U.S. troops close out America's longest war at the end of next year, according to officials familiar with the negotiations.
The U.S. team, in turn, is refusing to include written promises to come to Afghanistan's aid if it is attacked by militants from neighboring Pakistan or elsewhere after the withdrawal. A formal U.S. defense commitment could require Congress to vote on the agreement, a course the White House is determined to avoid, given the bitter partisan climate in Washington.
With both sides at odds after months of haggling, Obama administration officials are increasingly skeptical they can complete a deal this month, as the White House had wanted.
Karzai spokesman Aimal Faizi told reporters last week in Kabul, the Afghan capital, that the disputes over independent U.S. operations and security guarantees have become potential “deal breakers.”
Officials said President Obama hopes to use his State of the Union speech next year to announce how many U.S. troops will stay behind and for what mission. Without a signed security pact, the United States and its allies will maintain little, if any, military presence in Afghanistan after 2014.
The Pentagon's plans to train Afghan soldiers and police to withstand the still potent Taliban-led insurgency may be abandoned or downsized, said the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks.
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.
- Appeals court tosses gag order in ex-coal company CEO’s case
- Plane skids off runway at LaGuardia; no injuries reported
- Ringling Bros. circus eliminating elephant acts
- Winter storm swirls from Texas to New England
- NYC public schools to close on 2 major Muslim holidays
- Feds raid ‘maternity hotels’ in Ca.
- This winter, a fur coat’s not enough
- 800,000 HealthCare.gov customers given wrong tax info
- Natural gas royalties lawsuit hinges on transaction date
- Carnegie Mellon expert to school Congress on security
- Los Angeles rookie officer claims shooting victim grabbed his gun