U.S. dire on full pullout from Afghanistan if deal not signed
BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan — America's top military officer warned the withdrawal of most U.S. and allied forces from Afghanistan by the end of next year could reverse gains made in the war against the Taliban and further destabilize the region.
But Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the United States has no plans to reopen negotiations on the hard-won text. Dempsey said he hasn't started planning for a so-called “zero-option,” but he may have to soon if Hamid Karzai doesn't change his mind and sign the deal.
Much is at stake. Afghan security forces are still struggling against a resilient insurgency despite billions of dollars spent on training during nearly 13 years at war. Instability in Afghanistan — the world's largest illicit producer of raw opium — could affect the region as far away as Russia. Such concerns, Dempsey said, are what make Afghanistan important to America and its allies despite waning interest in the conflict at home.
“Were it to become less stable, it would have impact on its neighbors,” Dempsey said at the military base north of the capital. “All of us would be concerned about the possibility of ungoverned space producing safe havens for terrorism, so stability in the region is in our national interest.”
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.
- Islamic State group claims Shiite mosque blast in Saudi Arabia
- Chinese artillery spotted on artificial island
- Blatter wins re-election despite FIFA corruption scandal
- Motivated Syrian Kurds take fight to ISIS in contrast to failures of Iraqi army
- Gunmen hijack buses in Pakistan, kill passengers
- Nigerian president brightens hope
- ISIS solidifies grip on Syrian town of Palmyra
- American reporter’s espionage trial begins
- Blair to quit post as U.N. special Middle East envoy
- Dollar’s prominence grows in Venezuela