Obama Slows Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal

President Barack Obama today reversed plans to withdraw about 5,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan this year, keeping the current level of 9,800 troops until end of 2015. Obama announced the decision after meeting with visiting Afghan President Ashraf Ghani at the White House.

“President Ghani had requested some flexibility on our drawdown timelines,” Obama said at a joint press conference, adding the decision “reflects our reinvigorated partnership with Afghanistan… We want to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to help Afghan security forces succeed.” (AFP, 24 March)

Earlier in the day, Afghan President Ghani and Chief Executive Officer (Prime Minister) Abdullah Abdullah visited the Arlington Cemetery to honor more than 2,200 U.S. servicemen and servicewomen killed in action while fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In a moving ceremony, they placed wreaths to honor the fallen American soldiers.

Photo credit: President Barack Obama (R) with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani during a joint press conference at the White House; 24 March 2015 (AFP/france24.com)

Afghanistan Ratifies Agreement on U.S. Forces Beyond 2014

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani today signed the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) between Kabul and Washington and the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). The Lower and Upper Houses of Parliament had already ratified the agreements, which will pave the way for the presence of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to train and advice Afghan security forces.

Afghanistan and U.S. Sign Bilateral Security Agreement

A day after the new Afghan government took office, Afghanistan and the United States signed a long-awaited Bilateral Security Agreement (B.S.A.), allowing nearly 10,000 American troops to remain in the country beyond the 31 December drawdown of U.S. combat forces. The force that will remain in Afghanistan will train and support local security forces, and a contingent of U.S. Special Operations forces will conduct counterterrorism missions in the country. Some 2,000 NATO troops will also join the Americans in their new mission.

Hanif Atmar, the new Afghan national security advisor, who signed the pact on behalf of his country, called it a “historic agreement,” and said it had the endorsement of Loya Jirga, the grand assembly of Afghan elders, who met and approved the pact in December.

“The people of Afghanistan placed a great steak in our enduring partnership,” said Atmar.

U.S. Ambassador James Cunningham signed for the United States. Witnessing the signing ceremonies at the presidential palace in Kabul were the new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive (Prime Minister) Abdullah Abdullah.

In Washington, President Barack Obama praised the pact.

“The B.S.A. reflects our continued commitment to support the new Afghan Unity Government, and we look forward to working with this new government to cement an enduring partnership that strengthen Afghan sovereignty, stability, unity, and prosperity, and that contributes to our shared goal of defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates,” the president said in a statement released by the White House.

Photo credit: The B.S.A. signing ceremony at Arg, the Presidential Palace. Hanif Atmar, the new Afghan national security advisor (r.), and U.S. Ambassador James Cunningham signed the B.S.A. on behalf of their respective countries. Kabul, 30 September 2014 (NYT)

Obama in Afghanistan

On the eve of Memorial Day, President Barack Obama arrived in Afghanistan to visit U.S. soldiers. Upon arrival at Bagram Airfield, the president held a briefing with General Joseph Dunford, the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, Ambassador James Cunningham and other senior U.S. military and civilian leaders in the country.

Obama then spoke to about 3,000 American troops gathered in a hanger at Bagram and thanked them for their service.

Obama also talked on the phone with Afghan President Hamid Karzai for about 15 minutes.

“Once Afghanistan has sworn in its new president, I’m hopeful we will sign a bilateral security agreement that lets us move forward,” Obama said. “And with that bilateral security agreement, assuming it is signed, we can plan for a limited military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014.” (NYTimes, 25 May)

Top photo: President Obama spoke to troops during his visit to Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)

Bottom photo: President Obama attended a briefing with the ambassador to Afghanistan, James Cunningham, left, commander of U.S. forces, General Joseph Dunford, and Susan E. Rice just after arriving at Bagram Airfield. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)

Afghan President to Visit Iran on Sunday - UPDATE

Amid Iran’s Call for ‘Zero Option’

 

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is to visit Iran on Sunday. The Afghan-U.S. Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), which lays out the rules for U.S. troops to operate in the country after 2014, is expected to top the agenda during meetings between Karzai and senior Iranian officials.

Karzai is refusing to sign the BSA, even though a Loya Jirga appointed by him approved the pact last month. On Saturday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel arrived in Kabul amid disagreement over whether he would even meet the Afghan president in the face of the security pact row. A meeting is reportedly set for late Saturday.

Without the BSA, The United States and its NATO allies will have to exercise the so-called “Zero Option,” meaning no troops left behind at the end of 2014, pretty much like what happened in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Iranian government has been strongly pushing for the Zero Option.

“Iran does not see the signing and ratifying of this security pact to be beneficial for the long-term interests of the people and government of Afghanistan,” said Iranian foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham. (AFP, 7 December)

UPDATE: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters in Kabul that he has received assurances from Afghan Defense Minister Bismillah Khan Mohammadi that “the BSA would be signed in a timely manner.” (Reuters, 7 December)

File photo: Afghan President Hamid Karzai (left) and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Bishkek, September 13, 2013. (Vyacheslav Oseledko/AFP)

Iran Criticizes Afghan-US Strategic Pact

Iran's foreign ministry today denounced the new strategic pact signed between Afghanistan and the United States, saying it would give rise to instability in Afghanistan.

"Iran is concerned about the strategic pact signed between Afghanistan and the US," foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said. "Not only will the strategic pact not resolve Afghanistan's security problems, but it will intensify insecurity and instability in Afghanistan," he added [IRNA, 6 May].

President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed the pact with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, defining post-2014 ties with Kabul. Some US forces would remain in Afghanistan to train Afghan forces and engage the remenants of Al-Qaeda, but the US would not maintain permanent military bases in the country.

US-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement

The US and Afghanistan have reached a ten-year strategic partnership beyond the planned 2014 withdrawal of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan. The draft agreement was initialed today in Kabul by the US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Afghan National Security Advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta. The New York Times today quoted Crocker as saying that America is devoted to helping Afghanistan to become a “unified, democratic, stable, and secure state.” Spanta said the agreement “provides a strong foundation for the security of Afghanistan, the region and the world.”

The document will become official when it is signed by Presidents Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai. CNN reported today that President Obama wants the document to be signed before the NATO conference scheduled for 20 May in Chicago.

Tough Sanctions Bill Introduced at US Senate

US Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) today sponsored a bill at US Senate, entitled “Syria, North Korea and Iran Consolidated Sanctions Act of 2011”, to boost enforcement of existing sanctions and bring fresh pressure on Iran’s oil sector and its military. The act, if approved and signed into law, would require the administration to impose sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), toughen the existing sanctions against IRGC and its affiliated companies, and report any violations of sanctions laws by publicly-traded companies to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Sen. Kirk unveiled his bill during a speech at the AIPAC policy conference underway in Washington. Co-sponsors of the bill are Susan Collins (R), Robert Mendez (D), Bob Casey (D) and Joe Lieberman (I).

Afghan Wikileaks on Iran

By Nader Uskowi

The Wikileaks Afghan war logs contains more than 90,000 entries. This blogger has so far read just over 1,000 logs, hence the risk of generalizing their quality based on this limited sample. But a basic characteristic is already evident throughout these reports: these logs are less intel reports and more a collection of stories, unsubstantiated or not, and rumors, as told by questionable local sources to the reporting officers and passed on as intel collected on the ground. It is certainly hoped that the intel as described in these logs were not, and are not, the basis of US actions in Afghanistan.

My particular interest were the logs dealing with Iran’s actions in Afghanistan. Few surprises so far, but some interesting items:

- Some 100 Taliban commanders, along with 15 Chechens, entered Afghanistan from Iran in 2009. They were tasked to conduct attacks, including suicide bombings, in Kabul.

- Existence in Birjand, Iran, of a training base where Iranians train Taliban and HIG (Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s) fighters. From same location, the reports say, the Iranians send to Afghanistan explosive devices and vehicles ready to be used in suicide car bombings.

- A 2005 report that the Iranians had delivered 10 million afghanis (more than $200,000) to four HIG fighters. The monies were hidden inside a Toyota station wagon for transfer into Afghanistan.

- A 2005 report widely quoted in the media that the Iranians were offering anti-government fighters 100,000 afghanis ($22,000) for any Afghan soldier killed and 200,000 afghanis ($44,000) for any government officials killed. [The report referred to “rupee” which is the Pakistani currency, but also popularly used in reference to the afghani, Afghanistan’s currency. If it meant the Pakistani currency, then the rewards would have been much less, at some $1,700 and $3,400 respectively].

PBS Frontline: Obama's War - Iran's Perspective

Before continuing on with this post, readers are encouraged to view the latest episode of PBS Frontline, Obama's War.

At about 40:39 into the documentary the Director of Afghan Intelligence, Amrullah Saleh (pictured above), complains bitterly about Pakistani support for the Taliban. He says:

The enemy is an ideology … [and a] policy nurtured in Pakistan for 30 years. And it says Afghanistan must be governed by a backwater, conservative, clerical state obedient, half-obedient or at least loyal to Pakistan. Pakistanis were not able to finance such an adventure, so they started to beg money and resources from Arab countries and from extremist figures in the Arab world.

Iran faced the very same foe in the late 1990's. In August of 1998, Iran was seriously provoked when nine of its diplomats were murdered during the Talibani takeover of the northern Afghan city Mazar-i-Sharif. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, publicly held Pakistan partly responsible. Iranian Army divisions from nine provinces massed along the Iran-Afghanistan border. War appeared imminent.

Iranian Army units massing along the Afghanistan border, 1998

However, cooler heads in Tehran prevailed, and there was no attempted invasion or military occupation. (American and Israeli hawks that subscribe to the notion that Iran's leadership is "irrational" would do well to study the level of restraint exercised during this incident.) While the Iranians faced the same adversaries currently confronting American forces, that is to say Pakistani-supported Pashtun fighters (Taliban) and Saudi-supported Arab mercenaries (al-Qaida), Iran took a different, some would say smarter approach to their conflict. Instead of directly engaging the enemy with its own military force, Iran aligned itself with local proxy forces against the Talibani-Pakistani-Saudi axis. These forces were comprised of Tajiks (an Iranian people), Hazara (Shia) and Uzbeks (Turko-Persians). The game was the same that's now played by the Americans: bring over as many Pashtuns as they could over to their side. Only today, the American variation involves adversarial elements drawn from its own supposed allies- Pakistan, and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia- as well as a complicated, full-fledged military occupation by IASF forces. Big difference, with far-reaching consequences.

It is a supreme irony that Iran finds two of its enemies (the Taliban and the US) engaged in a seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; another irony being the Baath-US conflict in Iraq. In both cases, the Saudi-supported Arab mercenary group (al-Qaida) is also engaged. All the while, Iran's sideline approach to the conflict mirrors the very one the US once enjoyed during the Iran-Iraq War. It is safe to assume that Iran's leadership is very much pleased with the situation. For if not for an open-ended American military commitment to Afghanistan, Iran might again be forced to deal with this themselves. And for Iran during the late 1990's, that constituted a major distraction, filled with peril and difficulty, to which Americans now understand full well. Ever more so, for the US actually has boots on the ground, with more on the way; in its ninth year of war and counting.

--MARK PYRUZ

Iran & The West: Nuclear Confrontation

Third of the three part series Iran & The West which debuted on BBC last February detailing the history of Iran's relation with the west (primarily the United States) which is 30 years old this year!

This episode entitled Nuclear Confrontation details Iranian and Western relations after 9/11 and the subsequent US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the controversy over Iran's nuclear program.