This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/obama-delay-withdrawal-us-troops-afghanistan

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Barack Obama delays withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan Barack Obama delays withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan
(34 minutes later)
Barack Obama has announced plans to keep US troops in Afghanistan beyond his departure from office in January 2017, casting aside a promise to end the war on his watch. Barack Obama has abandoned his longstanding goal of ending the war in Afghanistan – the longest in US history – and suggested he may need to make further adjustments in troop numbers before his presidency ends.
The US president had originally planned to pull out all but a small, embassy-based US military presence by the end of next year, but on Thursday said that 5,500 troops will remain in a “modest but meaningful” extension of the US mission. The move follows Taliban advances, including the temporary takeover of Kunduz late last month. After months of deliberation within his administration, the US president said he would leave 5,500 US forces in Afghanistan beyond his departure from office in January 2017.
It reverses his previous plan, announced in spring 2014, to cut troop levels to that number in 2015, which US military commanders had prevailed upon Obama to abandon, citing an escalation in Taliban attacks.
Related: 'The mission will not change': Obama to keep troops in Afghanistan – live updatesRelated: 'The mission will not change': Obama to keep troops in Afghanistan – live updates
It is at least the second time that the US has had to revise its exit strategy in the face of surges by the Taliban, who, as well as temporarily taking Kunduz in the north, control large swaths of the countryside. The present force of 9,800 US troops will remain in the country throughout most of next year. Those who remain into 2017 will be dispersed at three major hubs around the country, training the fledgling Afghan security services and hunting Taliban and al-Qaida targets.
Obama acknowledged America’s weariness of the lengthy conflict but said he was “firmly convinced we should make this extra effort”. “This isn’t the first time those adjustments have been made, this probably won’t be the last,” Obama said.
The US defence secretary, Ash Carter, signalled the change in a speech on Wednesday in which he said: “The narrative that we’re leaving Afghanistan is self-defeating. We’re not, we can’t and to do so would not be to take advantage of the success we’ve had to date.” Acknowledging that he will not end the war that he escalated and then pledged to “responsibly” conclude, Obama said: “I suspect we will continue to evaluate this going forward, as will the next president.”
The fall of Kunduz was a major blow to the Afghan government and the US military. The American-trained Afghan army, supported by US special forces, were unable to prevent its capture. The Taliban held the city for more than two weeks, only pulling back on Tuesday. Obama blamed the strategic volte-face on weaker than expected Afghan security forces, but insisted they were still capable of assuming full responsibility eventually.
During the fighting, the US bombed a Médecins sans Frontières hospital, killing 22 people, including 12 MSF staff and 10 patients. “The bottom line is in key areas of the country, the security situation is still very fragile and in some places there is risk of deterioration,” said the president.
Reporters were told that the present force of 9,800 US troops would remain throughout most of next year, being reduced to 5,500 in 2017. Apart from special forces on the ground with the Afghan army, most of the US troops are engaged in training roles, operating from bases in Kabul and in Kandahar in the south. “Afghan forces are still not as strong as they need to be … meanwhile the Taliban has made gains,” he added.
As well as the Taliban, the Obama administration has expressed concern about Islamic State fighters moving into the country and gaining recruits from within the Taliban. The president claimed that the continued US troop presence was not a replacement for effective Afghan security forces and did not amount to a change in the strategy of training and supporting local forces rather than leading combat operations.
Related: Obama U-turn on troops withdrawal makes Afghanistan an election issueRelated: Obama U-turn on troops withdrawal makes Afghanistan an election issue
The president’s decision to keep the US military in Afghanistan beyond his tenure thrusts the conflict into the 2016 presidential race. The next president will become the third US commander-in-chief to oversee the war, with the options of trying to bring it to a close, maintaining the presence as Obama left it or ramping up US involvement in the conflict. “Every day Afghan forces are dying to support their country, they are not looking for us to do it for them,” he said.
The decision amounts to a passing of the buck to the next president by Obama, who has tacitly accepted that his goal of leaving Afghanistan in a stable state before he departs from office is now in tatters. “The nature of our mission has not changed and the cessation of our combat role has not changed.”
Although the White House is expected to propose a further phased drawdown of troops in 2017, the reality is that the next commander-in-chief who takes charge at the beginning of that year may just as likely be forced to bolster the remaining US presence, especially if it serves as a magnet for further Taliban attacks. He also called on American voters to have patience with his strategy, which has been criticised for encouraging Taliban resistance by repeatedly promising that Nato forces would withdraw.
Following a strong performance in Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate, a naturally-more hawkish Hillary Clinton will now be under pressure to distance herself from Obama’s policy in Afghanistan in much the same way as she has done by calling for more air intervention in Syria. “I know many of you are wary of this conflict,” said Obama. “I don’t support the idea of endless war, but given what’s at stake and the fact that we have an international coalition, I am firmly convinced we should make this extra commitment.”
Until now, Afghanistan has barely factored into campaign discussions on foreign policy and was not mentioned in the Democratic debate. The war was discussed only briefly in the two Republican debates that have taken place so far. To US forces, which have suffered 25 fatalities this year, he added: “I do not send you into harm’s way lightly – this is the most solemn decision I make – but as your commander in chief I believe this mission is vital to our national security.”
The strategic U-turn by the White House follows a similar pattern to its re-entry of US troops into Iraq and will also provide plentiful political ammunition for Republican presidential hopefuls, who have already made foreign policy a major feature of their attack on Democrats. Beyond his presidency, Afghanistan will be a “key piece of the network of counter-terrorism partnership we need” throughout the Middle East and south Asia, Obama said.
Together, the twin political pressures – both directly on Obama’s legacy and on his likely successor – could now herald a more hawkish phase in Washington’s appetite for overseas troop deployments, which had plummeted after the George W Bush presidency but have begun to harden again in response to setbacks for the Afghan and Iraqi governments. Former US military commanders said the 5,500 troop level was below the “minimum” requirements for an effective US force, and questioned if Obama will actually shrink force levels to that size before leaving office.
Other Nato countries with troops in Afghanistan – including Georgia, Germany, Romania,Turkey and the UK – are likely to mirror the US extension. Germany has already said it is willing to extend its presence with one year. Continued Taliban progress will “put President Obama in his final days in office in a dilemma and his successor in a dilemma”, said retired army lieutenant general Dan Bolger, an Afghanistan veteran who once led the training of the Afghan military.
“This was very much expected, and it’s welcome news,” said Daud Sultanzoy, an adviser to Afghan president Ashraf Ghani. “Mr Obama made a decision based on recommendations from his military commanders, and that is how it should be.” “These numbers aren’t based on how many advisers or air support they need, they’re just numbers. The military will do what they can,” Bolger said.
Last week, Obama’s commander in Afghanistan, General John Campbell, testified to Congress that he did not support Obama’s plan to reduce troop levels to a force based around the US embassy in Kabul. Campbell said that the Taliban, which briefly overran the northern city of Kunduz, was fighting harder than in previous years, and the Afghan military that the US has sponsored for a decade continues to exhibit key weaknesses in sustainment and air support.
The Republican leadership on the armed services committees indicated their backing for the slowdown in the troop withdrawals, while signalling their disbelief that the residual 5,500-troop presence was realistic.
“It is highly unlikely that a force level of 5,500 troops was recommended as the best professional judgment of our senior military leaders and commanders on the ground in Afghanistan,” said John McCain of Arizona, the chairman of the Senate armed services committee.
“The bottom line is that 5,500 troops will only be adequate to conduct either the counter-terrorism or the train-and-advise mission, but not both. Our military commanders have said that both are critical to prevent Afghanistan from spiralling into chaos.”
McCain’s counterpart in the House, Mac Thornberry of Texas, commented: “While this new plan avoids a disaster, it is certainly not a plan for success.”
The revision in Obama’s plan was not deterred by one of the highest-profile disasters of the 14-year-old war: the 3 October US airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders’ field hospital in Kunduz. The group, known by its French acronym MSF, has called the attack a war crime and has sought an international inquiry, a step Obama has thus far declined to endorse. MSF launched an online petition to pressure Obama on Thursday.
Other Nato countries with troops in Afghanistan – including Georgia, Germany, Romania, Turkey and the UK – are likely to mirror the US extension. Germany has already said it is willing to extend its presence by one year.
Obama’s statement was well received by the Kabul government, which Obama said had requested the extra troops.
“This was very much expected, and it’s welcome news,” said Daud Sultanzoy, an adviser to the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani. “Mr Obama made a decision based on recommendations from his military commanders, and that is how it should be.”
He said that while the announcement would help stabilise the country for now, the mandate of the international troops in Afghanistan remained the same.He said that while the announcement would help stabilise the country for now, the mandate of the international troops in Afghanistan remained the same.
“One thing we need to remember is that while the withdrawal is delayed, the nature of the mission has not changed. It is still train, advise, assist,” he said, referring to the three elements of Nato’s Afghanistan mission since January. “It is up to us to elevate our capabilites, and it is [our allies’] responsibility to get us to that.”“One thing we need to remember is that while the withdrawal is delayed, the nature of the mission has not changed. It is still train, advise, assist,” he said, referring to the three elements of Nato’s Afghanistan mission since January. “It is up to us to elevate our capabilites, and it is [our allies’] responsibility to get us to that.”
Sultanzoy emphasised that the war in Afghanistan included more actors than just the national government, the armed opposition and the international coalition. Countries like Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Uzbekistan all had a stake in the conflict, he said. Sultanzoy emphasised that the war in Afghanistan included more actors than just the national government, the armed opposition and the international coalition. Countries such as Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Uzbekistan all had a stake in the conflict, he said.
“This is not just an Afghan war,” he said, “and it would behoove our allies to look at this war and the region and realise that this requires much larger attention.”“This is not just an Afghan war,” he said, “and it would behoove our allies to look at this war and the region and realise that this requires much larger attention.”
Shukria Barakzai, an Afghan MP who has previously been critical of US plans to withdraw troops, welcomed Obama’s announcement. “It is not a choice” for the US to keep troops in Afghanistan, she said, “it is an obligation.”Shukria Barakzai, an Afghan MP who has previously been critical of US plans to withdraw troops, welcomed Obama’s announcement. “It is not a choice” for the US to keep troops in Afghanistan, she said, “it is an obligation.”
Barakzai added: “The US has created a lot of problems for Afghans, ever since the cold war, so it has a responsibility to help and support Afghans.”Barakzai added: “The US has created a lot of problems for Afghans, ever since the cold war, so it has a responsibility to help and support Afghans.”
Barakzai said that previous public announcements about reducing the US military presence had bolstered the Taliban, giving the insurgents time to prepare the offensives carried out this year. Now, she said, the US needed to be clear about what exactly its troops were going to contribute to Afghanistan, with military power alone not sufficient.Barakzai said that previous public announcements about reducing the US military presence had bolstered the Taliban, giving the insurgents time to prepare the offensives carried out this year. Now, she said, the US needed to be clear about what exactly its troops were going to contribute to Afghanistan, with military power alone not sufficient.
“I believe the US should focus more on building the infrastructure of the Afghan economy. One main reason for the war is the poor economy,” she said.“I believe the US should focus more on building the infrastructure of the Afghan economy. One main reason for the war is the poor economy,” she said.
Cautiously welcoming Obama’s decision, Abdul Waheed Wafa, executive director of the Afghanistan Center at Kabul University, said that although the proposed 5,500 troops would not be enough to sufficiently train government troops and quell the insurgency, “it will be a big boost to the morale of the Afghan national security forces”.Cautiously welcoming Obama’s decision, Abdul Waheed Wafa, executive director of the Afghanistan Center at Kabul University, said that although the proposed 5,500 troops would not be enough to sufficiently train government troops and quell the insurgency, “it will be a big boost to the morale of the Afghan national security forces”.
“It will not deter the Taliban’s ambition to gain more territory,” he said, “but it will be a message to them that the international and especially the American commitment to Afghanistan will remain, and it will slow the pace of the Taliban.”“It will not deter the Taliban’s ambition to gain more territory,” he said, “but it will be a message to them that the international and especially the American commitment to Afghanistan will remain, and it will slow the pace of the Taliban.”
For several years, the prospects of the US withdrawal had loomed over Afghanistan, while the country struggled with a poor economy, deteriorating security situation and a weak government, Wafa said.For several years, the prospects of the US withdrawal had loomed over Afghanistan, while the country struggled with a poor economy, deteriorating security situation and a weak government, Wafa said.
“Currently, Afghanistan is facing a lot of challenges at once,” he said. “Giving the troops one year more is good enough for the moment. And delaying the troops also means that President Obama listens to his generals, who always said we should withdraw based on the situation on the ground.”“Currently, Afghanistan is facing a lot of challenges at once,” he said. “Giving the troops one year more is good enough for the moment. And delaying the troops also means that President Obama listens to his generals, who always said we should withdraw based on the situation on the ground.”