Afghanistan: Once we’re out, we’re out
October 23, 2013 12:00 AM | 1186 views | 1 1 comments | 28 28 recommendations | email to a friend | print
It would have been better for Iraq’s security and stability if a residual force of U.S. troops had stayed on after the agreed-upon departure in December 2011. But President Obama was little interested in such a scenario.

Now, thanks to a resurgent al-Qaida and renewed Sunni-Shia violence, the monthly death tolls of sectarian violence have been approaching the dark days of 2007-08, before the U.S. “surge” put a lid on the factional fighting.

This spring, resurgent violence prompted the Iraqi government to grit its teeth and ask the U.S. to discreetly send back U.S. advisers, drone operators and intelligence analysts.

The request remains under extended consideration, but there is little enthusiasm for it among the military, in Congress and least of all in U.S. public opinion. U.S. troops are not there partly because the Iraqi government demanded they be subject to Iraqi law, police and courts. U.S. commanders said no, insisting that American soldiers would remain subject to U.S. military law and courts. Absent that agreement, the U.S. packed up and left.

Now the problem is recurring in Afghanistan, where the U.S. still has 60,000 troops, according to the International Security Assistance Force. The Obama administration has talked about slowly drawing down that number to about 34,000 in early 2014. The Afghan government would be wise to grant immunity from Afghan law to the U.S. troops asked to remain there. Of course, the troops would be subject to American military law and American military courts. Historically, the U.S. military has always displayed a firm hand at dealing with its members who commit crimes on foreign soil.

The U.S. and Afghanistan have a draft agreement that provides for just that, but it still must be approved by up to 3,000 members of a special Afghan assembly called a Loya Jirga, scheduled to meet in November. The agreement also must not offend the prickly pride of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Karzai should sign the pact, formally known as the Bilateral Security Agreement, before he leaves office next April. Iran, the Taliban and major forces within Pakistan want to see the U.S. out, removing a major obstacle to their attempts to influence the country.

Strictly from the point of Afghan self-interest, it would be best if a U.S. presence stayed on — to help stabilize the country, to continue training the Afghan security forces and to ensure U.S. development aid keeps flowing. A majority of U.S. citizens also want our forces out of Afghanistan, and the sooner the better.

Iraq should be an object lesson to Kabul: Once we’re out, we’re out.
Comments
(1)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No More!
|
October 23, 2013
No more wasted American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan!

No more failed, neo-conservative foreign interventionism!

No more wasted trillions (yes, trillions) of American tax $$ in these hellholes!

No more! It's been long past time to get out of these areas and let these people fend for themselves. Regardless of what we do, we're hated by all sides over there. Time to leave - the sooner, the better. We need those trillions IN AMERICA.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides