CQ NEWS – DEFENSE
Nov. 4, 2012 – 8:46 p.m.
Republicans, Democrats Diverge on Afghan Strategy After 2014
By Frank Oliveri, CQ Staff
Defense policy lawmakers expect to focus intensely on Afghanistan in 2013, particularly on the pace of the U.S. drawdown and negotiations over a formal agreement that would define the post-2014 military relationship between the two nations.
Senior congressional aides from both parties appear to largely agree on the general framework for a drawdown through the end of 2014, although some Democrats, such as
But their views diverge after 2014, when Republicans believe Afghanistan will still be a national security concern for the United States, while Democrats see a greatly diminished threat.
“If we stayed another year, how would that situation be better,” one senior Democratic aide asked. “We think they are largely ready, with caveats.”
Those caveats would be air, artillery and logistical support, the aide explained. Further, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction reported Oct. 31 that the Afghan government likely won’t be capable of sustaining Afghan National Security Forces facilities after the transition in 2014.
While the report’s finding is no surprise to congressional aides and military officials, it underscores the kinds of challenges posed by the transition.
Nonetheless, senior Hill aides said the emphasis in Afghanistan among military commanders and on the Armed Services committees has shifted toward the ambitious task of removing acres of equipment and people from Afghanistan before the 2014 departure, while securing a “status of forces agreement,” or SOFA, that includes legal immunity for U.S. troops to operate in Afghanistan and U.S. control of high-value detainees.
After a recent trip to Afghanistan, one senior aide noted that Afghans needed to be reminded over and over that without immunity for U.S. servicemembers stationed in Afghanistan, “we will leave.”
Aides from both parties emphasized the importance of this agreement, but acknowledged that a deal won’t be easy to reach. In particular, the inability to secure immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq, which doomed a SOFA there, looms large in the minds of military and congressional officials.
Change in Tone
In recent months, military commanders in Afghanistan find more and more of their time consumed by planning for departure from the land-locked nation.
Senior congressional aides said this shift in emphasis is important, given how enormous the task will be.
Indeed, in recent briefings, aides noted that everyone from Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, commander of allied forces in Afghanistan, down to the lower-level leaders emphasized the number of bases to be closed and the number of areas turned over to Afghan control. Allen, who soon will be replaced after being nominated to become the top allied commander in NATO, will provide his recommendations to President Obama later this year for the military drawdown.
Republicans, Democrats Diverge on Afghan Strategy After 2014
“A year ago, it was, ‘Here are our combat operations, and don’t take away ourguys,’” one senior Democratic aide said. Now, the aide added, even in eastern Afghanistan, “where they have serious combat, they said, ‘We closed this number of bases.’ While there is some political debate about this, I don’t know that we had accepted how far they have come in terms of the military believing in the 2014 deadline.”
But while GOP aides acknowledge the broad consensus on the general direction in Afghanistan, one said: “I think there is a matter of nuance. I think [Democrats] would like to accelerate it to as far a degree as they can, and our side wants to do it very deliberately and methodically and based on what is happening on the ground.”
GOP aides also acknowledged surprise at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s reversal on supporting a deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Broadly, Republican aides are worried that after 2014, al Qaeda could be able to re-establish bases in Afghanistan to augment their ability to operate in the border region in Pakistan. They add that Pakistan may become more serious about pushing al Qaeda out.
“We are already seeing some of these effects,” one aide said. “The best thing for terrorist groups is to have sanctuary. The worst is to be cornered and not have a release valve.”
Afghan President Hamid Karzai could also continue to be a problem, a GOP aide noted. Despite being constitutionally required to step down, Karzai could, for instance, attempt to install a surrogate in office.
Another troubling sign is that the Afghan government appears to not have fully accepted its limitations.
Aides point to persistent requests from Karzai and other Afghan officials for the U.S. government to provide F-16s and tanks, requests that have been denied repeatedly. Given the low level of education in Afghanistan, the country’s meager gross domestic product and its inexperienced military, Pentagon officials do not believe Kabul could support such capabilities.
The Afghans countered by noting that the United States gave these weapons to Iraq.
“We did not ‘give’ the Iraqis F-16s and tanks,” one aide noted. “We sold them those weapons.”