Winding down the long war in Afghanistan would appear to be the priority for U.S. President Barack Obama, who made a key foreign policy speech at West Point Military Academy in New York on Wednesday after announcing that at the beginning of 2015, “We will have approximately 9,800 U.S. service members in different parts of the country, together with our NATO allies and other partners,” a number that would be reduced by “roughly half,” by the end of that year.
The President noted that by that time U.S. troops would be consolidated in Kabul and on Bagram Airfield and with the ending of the American and the gradual shift of U.S. personnel to an advisory role, “Afghans will be fully responsible for securing their country… We will no longer patrol Afghan cities or towns, mountains or valleys. That is a task for the Afghan people.”
He also noted that by the end of 2016, the U.S. military would draw down to a normal embassy presence in Kabul, with a security assistance component, just as we’ve done in Iraq. The plan has however been greeted with some criticism by experts here, and Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia at the Heritage Foundation, said to The Hindu , “While better than the ‘zero troops option’ the White House was reportedly considering, the 9,800 figure is the bare minimum necessary to backstop the Afghan forces, provide training, and conduct counterterrorism missions.”
She argued that it was disheartening that Mr. Obama, who may be “eyeing his legacy,” felt compelled to establish an arbitrary timeline for the troops’ withdrawal. Ms. Curtis urged instead that decisions on the duration of troop deployments ought to be driven by conditions on the ground and whether the U.S. was confident the Afghans could meet the Taliban threat.
On the broader regional implications Ms. Curtis noted that the U.S. announcement may not change the strategic calculations of either Islamabad or New Delhi to any great extent. “While there may be a mild sense of relief in India that the U.S. is not going immediately to a ‘zero troops option,’” she said, “New Delhi will still feel compelled to engage more of its resources in the fight in Afghanistan to ensure the Taliban remains at bay.”
Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, echoed this sentiment, however adding that with regard to Pakistan, “I suspect the ISI will be thrilled with the news that all the Americans and NATO forces will be gone by 2017. This puts a lot of pressure on the Modi government to get more involved in Afghanistan to fill the power vacuum.”
Ms. Curtis similarly said, “Despite Pakistan’s continued unwillingness to crack down on the Taliban and its desire to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan, many Pakistani officials would not welcome the Taliban taking over the country as it did in the 1990s.”
Pakistan has taken a very tactical approach to Afghanistan and has no real long-term strategy, she explained, adding that Pakistani leaders may thus be fine with the U.S. remaining in Afghanistan for a while longer, albeit in much smaller numbers.
