This article is from the source 'washpo' 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.washingtonpost.com/world/us-afghanistan-sign-security-pact-to-allow-american-forces-to-remain-in-country/2014/09/30/48f555ce-4879-11e4-a046-120a8a855cca_story.html?wprss=rss_world

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
U.S., Afghanistan sign long-delayed security pact U.S., Afghanistan sign vital, long-delayed security pact
(about 3 hours later)
KABUL — The United States and Afghanistan on Tuesday signed a vital security deal that allows some American troops to remain in Afghanistan beyond this year, ensuring a continuing U.S. presence in the region. KABUL — The United States and Afghanistan on Tuesday signed a vital, long-delayed security deal that will allow nearly 10,000 American troops to remain in Afghanistan beyond the final withdrawal of U.S. and international combat forces this year.
The Bilateral Security Agreement allows for 9,800 U.S. troops to stay in the country past 2014 to help train, equip and advise Afghan military and police forces. It comes as Taliban insurgents are increasing their attacks in an effort to regain control as most foreign troops prepare to leave by the end of the year. The Bilateral Security Agreement, and a separate agreement signed with NATO, permits the continued training and advising of Afghan security forces, and counterterrorism operations against remnants of al-Qaeda. The signing of the documents comes as Taliban insurgents are increasing their attacks in an effort to regain control in anticipation of the combat departures.
The accord was signed a day after Ashraf Ghani was sworn in as Afghanistan’s new president in a power-sharing government in the first democratic handover of power in the nation’s history. Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, who had presided over the country since shortly after the Taliban was driven from power in 2001, had refused to sign the agreement, souring relations with Washington. The accord was signed a day after Ashraf Ghani was sworn in as Afghanistan’s new president in a power-sharing government marking the first democratic hand-over of power in the nation’s history. Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, who had presided over the country since shortly after the Taliban was driven from power in 2001, had refused to sign the agreement, souring relations with Washington.
A separate, status-of-forces agreement also was signed. It permits a small NATO force to remain in Afghanistan past the end of the year. President Obama called it a “historic day” and said in a statement that it came only after “nearly two years of hard work by negotiating teams on both sides.” Critics, particularly Republican lawmakers, have charged that the failure to negotiate a similar agreement that would have allowed U.S. troops to stay in Iraq contributed to the rise of the current terrorist threat from Islamic State militants there.
Under the BSA, as it is called here, American forces would keep some bases in the country. The agreement also prevents U.S. military personnel from being prosecuted under Afghan laws for any crimes they may commit; instead, the United States has jurisdiction over any criminal proceedings or disciplinary action involving its troops inside the country. U.S. contractors and their employees do not fall into this category and would be subject to Afghan laws. Although Obama considered a complete Afghan withdrawal, he announced in May that up to 9,800 U.S. troops would remain, provided the agreement was signed, until the end of 2015. The accord allows U.S. basing at nine separate locations across Afghanistan.
Tuesday’s signing took place at the presidential palace compound in central Kabul. The BSA was signed by U.S. Ambassador James Cunningham and Afghan national security adviser Hanif Atmar inside a hall with a glittering chandelier and portraits of Afghanistan’s leaders over several centuries. That number is to be cut in half by 2016, with U.S. forces based only in Kabul and at Bagram air base. By the end of 2017, the U.S. force is to be further reduced to the size of what U.S. officials have called a “normal” military advisory component at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, most likely numbering several hundred.
The agreement also prevents U.S. military personnel from being prosecuted under Afghan laws for any crimes they may commit; instead, the United States has jurisdiction over any criminal proceedings or disciplinary action involving its troops inside the country. The provision does not apply to civilian contractors.
The NATO agreement, closely coordinated with the U.S. document, ensures that countries including Germany, Italy and others will also stay, although in much smaller numbers.
State Department officials in Washington did not specify the scope and nature of ongoing counterterrorism operations, which are to be conducted in partnership with Afghan forces. A number of al-Qaeda operatives have been ensconced for some time in the rugged mountains of eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistani border.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity under conditions imposed by the administration, declined to comment on the future of separate U.S. drone strikes, operated by the CIA from bases in Afghanistan, that continue to target al-Qaeda and other militants in western Pakistan.
U.S. funding for Afghanistan — up to $8 billion annually for military and other assistance for at least the next three years — was heavily dependent on approval of the BSA.
U.S. and international combat forces, now numbering about 40,000, have been gradually withdrawing as they approach the December deadline; international forces turned over complete security responsibility to Afghanistan in June 2013. The State Department officials said that the extent to which the United States would contribute “enablers” — including logistical support — to the Afghan military was still under discussion, but that any agreement would still come under Obama’s 9,800 force cap.
Tuesday’s signing took place at the presidential palace compound in central Kabul. The BSA was signed by U.S. Ambassador James B. Cunningham and Afghan national security adviser Hanif Atmar inside a hall with a glittering chandelier and portraits of Afghanistan’s leaders over several centuries.
In the audience were Ghani and former political rival Abdullah Abdullah, who is now the chief executive of the unity government. After months of political tensions over a disputed vote, both men agreed to share power after a compromise deal was brokered by the United States, staving off the threat of ethnic rifts and violence.In the audience were Ghani and former political rival Abdullah Abdullah, who is now the chief executive of the unity government. After months of political tensions over a disputed vote, both men agreed to share power after a compromise deal was brokered by the United States, staving off the threat of ethnic rifts and violence.
After the signing of the pacts — Atmar and a senior NATO official signed the status-of-forces agreement — Ghani took the podium and assured dignitaries, as well as Afghans watching the nationally televised ceremony, that the BSA would not violate the country’s sovereignty and laws. He also assured Afghanistan’s neighbors that the extended presence of U.S. troops would pose no threat to them. In remarks after the signing, Ghani assured dignitaries, as well as Afghans watching the nationally televised ceremony, that the BSA would not violate the country’s sovereignty and laws. He also assured Afghanistan’s neighbors that the extended presence of U.S. troops would pose no threat to them.
“I assure the nation that these agreements are in our national interest,” Ghani said. “If needed, these agreements can change with the consideration of the interests of both sides.”“I assure the nation that these agreements are in our national interest,” Ghani said. “If needed, these agreements can change with the consideration of the interests of both sides.”
U.S. officials applauded the BSA as a new chapter in U.S.-Afghanistan relations. Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who played a key role in brokering the new unity government, said in a statement that the Afghan people “are determined to choose unity over division.” A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, declared the security pact an attempt by the United States to assert its authority over Afghanistan and its people.
“This is a beginning not an ending, and with all beginnings the toughest decisions are still ahead,” he said. “As Afghanistan enters this new chapter in its history, the United States looks forward to deepening its enduring partnership with a sovereign, unified and democratic Afghanistan.” But tribal leaders in areas targeted by the Taliban said Tuesday that they welcomed the accord, and said they hoped it would deliver a blow to resurgent militants, as well as to what they described as meddling by neighboring Pakistan and Iran.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a statement that “these agreements will enable American and coalition troops to continue to help strengthen Afghan forces, counter terrorist threats, and advance regional security.”
A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, denounced the security pact, declaring it an attempt by the United States to assert its authority over Afghanistan and its people.
“Under the cover of the Security Agreement, America wants to occupy our land and nation, and make our people suffer,” Mujahid said in an e-mailed statement.
But tribal leaders in areas targeted by the Taliban said Tuesday that they welcomed the security agreement. They said they hoped it would deliver a blow to resurgent Islamist militancy, as well as to what they described as meddling by neighboring Pakistan and Iran.
“If the United States is honest with the security agreement with Afghanistan, the security agreement means prosperity for the Afghans and a heavy slap on the faces of Taliban, Pakistan and Iran,” said Haji Matu Khan, a tribal elder of Marjah district in volatile Helmand province.“If the United States is honest with the security agreement with Afghanistan, the security agreement means prosperity for the Afghans and a heavy slap on the faces of Taliban, Pakistan and Iran,” said Haji Matu Khan, a tribal elder of Marjah district in volatile Helmand province.
On the streets of Kabul, Afghans expressed mixed feelings about U.S. troops’ continuing presence in their country. Some said the pact would help solve the nation’s many woes. On the streets of Kabul, Afghans expressed mixed feelings about a continuing U.S. troop presence.
“Signing the BSA is in the interest of Afghanistan. It will prevent civil war,” said Abdul Wahid Frogh, 28, a government employee. “From an economic perspective, the BSA will help Afghanistan attract aid and financial cooperation. As well, the BSA assures Afghan people that the international community will not let us go forward on our own, and this assurance will led to an economic boom.” “Signing the BSA is in the interest of Afghanistan. It will prevent civil war,” said Abdul Wahid Frogh, 28, a government employee. “From an economic perspective, the BSA will help Afghanistan attract aid and financial cooperation. As well, the BSA assures Afghan people that the international community will not let us go forward on our own, and this assurance will lead to an economic boom.”
But others were concerned about a long-term presence of U.S. troops and said Afghanistan had no other choice but to sign the pact. But others were concerned about an ongoing presence, and said Afghanistan had no other choice but to sign the pact.
“If we don’t sign the BSA, our forces won’t be paid. If our forces are not paid, they don’t fight the Taliban. If they don’t fight, the Taliban will be back,” said Mohammad Sediq, 41, a schoolteacher. “But the presence of foreign troops under the BSA shouldn’t be for a long time, because Afghans can’t tolerate foreign forces here for a long time.”“If we don’t sign the BSA, our forces won’t be paid. If our forces are not paid, they don’t fight the Taliban. If they don’t fight, the Taliban will be back,” said Mohammad Sediq, 41, a schoolteacher. “But the presence of foreign troops under the BSA shouldn’t be for a long time, because Afghans can’t tolerate foreign forces here for a long time.”
Sharif Hassan contributed to this report. DeYoung reported from Washington. Sharif Hassan contributed to this report.