American envoy expects Karzai to miss pact deadline
WASHINGTON — The lead American negotiator in talks over a long-term security agreement with Afghanistan has privately warned the Obama administration that its efforts to persuade President Hamid Karzai to sign the document on the U.S. timetable are likely to fail, according to officials.
The assessment, if borne out, would leave the administration with little time to assemble a military coalition to remain in Afghanistan and could raise the chances of a hasty and messy troop withdrawal by the end of the year.
The assessment, transmitted in recent days in a classified cable by U.S. Ambassador James B. Cunningham, follows the administration's repeated extension of the deadline for an agreement it originally said it expected to complete early last fall. The White House said this week that the document must be signed within “weeks, not months.”
In the cable, Cunningham said he did not think Karzai would agree to sign it before presidential elections scheduled for April.
In an assessment circulated last month, the U.S. intelligence community judged that a total American military withdrawal from Afghanistan would lead to a rapid collapse of central government control to the Taliban and other powerbrokers in wide swaths of the country.
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.
- Coal corruption scandal saps enthusiasm for eastern Ukraine rebels
- Smasher yields 1st look at new particles
- Job unlikely to be easy for new U.S. ambassador to Russia
- Kerry in overdrive to secure nuke pact
- United Arab Emirates brands Muslim Brotherhood terrorists
- Moscow on slippery slope with Ukraine fighting, Merkel warns
- 3 Americans, Briton killed in Jerusalem synagogue attack
- Egypt making slow progress on genital mutilation
- Homes of Palestinians linked to attacks targeted by Israel
- Russia, Ukraine trade buildup allegations
- Should Westerners who joined ISIS be barred from return?