This article is from the source 'nytimes' 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.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/world/asia/criticism-over-troop-withdrawal-emerges-from-beyond-gop.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Criticism Over Troop Withdrawal Emerges From Beyond G.O.P. | Criticism Over Troop Withdrawal Emerges From Beyond G.O.P. |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| WASHINGTON — Criticism of President Obama’s announcement that American forces would leave Afghanistan by the end of 2016 has begun to come not just from his Republican adversaries, but also from another quarter: former military officers and civilian officials who worked for years to develop and defend his administration’s strategy in Afghanistan. | WASHINGTON — Criticism of President Obama’s announcement that American forces would leave Afghanistan by the end of 2016 has begun to come not just from his Republican adversaries, but also from another quarter: former military officers and civilian officials who worked for years to develop and defend his administration’s strategy in Afghanistan. |
| These critics’ worry is that the withdrawal schedule Mr. Obama has set is so rigid and compressed that it will curtail efforts to train and advise Afghan security forces. Facing the possibility of a stepped-up military challenge from the Taliban, those forces still suffer from serious deficiencies, they say. | These critics’ worry is that the withdrawal schedule Mr. Obama has set is so rigid and compressed that it will curtail efforts to train and advise Afghan security forces. Facing the possibility of a stepped-up military challenge from the Taliban, those forces still suffer from serious deficiencies, they say. |
| “If it was a timeline with a strong statement that said, ‘Hey, this is our plan, but no plan survives contact with reality and, of course, we are going to adjust based on conditions on the ground,’ then no problem,” said Michèle A. Flournoy, who served as the undersecretary of defense for policy during Mr. Obama’s first term. “Are the Afghans on the path we have planned for, or are they not? Is the insurgency as we expected, or is it worse? All those things have to be factored in. | “If it was a timeline with a strong statement that said, ‘Hey, this is our plan, but no plan survives contact with reality and, of course, we are going to adjust based on conditions on the ground,’ then no problem,” said Michèle A. Flournoy, who served as the undersecretary of defense for policy during Mr. Obama’s first term. “Are the Afghans on the path we have planned for, or are they not? Is the insurgency as we expected, or is it worse? All those things have to be factored in. |
| “But what I am hearing out of the White House is that ‘hell or high water, this is what we are going to do.’ ” | “But what I am hearing out of the White House is that ‘hell or high water, this is what we are going to do.’ ” |
| James N. Mattis, the retired Marine general who oversaw the war in Afghanistan as head of the United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, said it was particularly unwise to set a public deadline for removing American troops. | James N. Mattis, the retired Marine general who oversaw the war in Afghanistan as head of the United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, said it was particularly unwise to set a public deadline for removing American troops. |
| “When you set a deadline, you give the enemy a reason for optimism, and in foreign policy, we should be reticent at telling our adversaries in advance what we will not do,” General Mattis said in an interview. | “When you set a deadline, you give the enemy a reason for optimism, and in foreign policy, we should be reticent at telling our adversaries in advance what we will not do,” General Mattis said in an interview. |
| David S. Sedney, a former deputy assistant of defense who served as the Pentagon’s point person for Afghanistan until he left the government last year, said that cutting back the American advisory effort so quickly could lead to trouble on several fronts. | David S. Sedney, a former deputy assistant of defense who served as the Pentagon’s point person for Afghanistan until he left the government last year, said that cutting back the American advisory effort so quickly could lead to trouble on several fronts. |
| “The consequences are not just that the Afghan forces are going to fight less well,” Mr. Sedney said. “They are going to take more casualties. They are going to commit more human rights abuses.” | “The consequences are not just that the Afghan forces are going to fight less well,” Mr. Sedney said. “They are going to take more casualties. They are going to commit more human rights abuses.” |
| He added, “The president’s language that this will bring the war to a responsible end is just wrong.” | He added, “The president’s language that this will bring the war to a responsible end is just wrong.” |
| Mr. Obama’s plan has defenders, including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, each of whom issued statements of support. | Mr. Obama’s plan has defenders, including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, each of whom issued statements of support. |
| “The American people want our job finished here, but they want it finished the right way,” Mr. Hagel said during a Sunday stop in Afghanistan. “And I think we’re on a path to do that over the next two years.” | “The American people want our job finished here, but they want it finished the right way,” Mr. Hagel said during a Sunday stop in Afghanistan. “And I think we’re on a path to do that over the next two years.” |
| But one senior American official, who declined to be identified because he was discussing internal deliberations, said that the White House had insisted on announcing a deadline for removing American forces even though many civilian and military officials would have preferred more flexibility. | But one senior American official, who declined to be identified because he was discussing internal deliberations, said that the White House had insisted on announcing a deadline for removing American forces even though many civilian and military officials would have preferred more flexibility. |
| Under Mr. Obama’s plan, the 32,000 American troops in Afghanistan would be cut to 9,800 after this year, a level that would enable the United States and other NATO nations to keep advisers at the major Afghan regional headquarters across the country. | Under Mr. Obama’s plan, the 32,000 American troops in Afghanistan would be cut to 9,800 after this year, a level that would enable the United States and other NATO nations to keep advisers at the major Afghan regional headquarters across the country. |
| In 2015, the United States plans to take the lead role in advising and training Afghan forces in southern and eastern Afghanistan, with Italy also operating in the east, Germany in the north and Turkey in Kabul. | In 2015, the United States plans to take the lead role in advising and training Afghan forces in southern and eastern Afghanistan, with Italy also operating in the east, Germany in the north and Turkey in Kabul. |
| But by the end of 2015, half of the 9,800 troops would leave Afghanistan. The rest would be consolidated in Kabul and Bagram, and then leave by the end of 2016, allowing Mr. Obama to say he ended the Afghan war before leaving office. | But by the end of 2015, half of the 9,800 troops would leave Afghanistan. The rest would be consolidated in Kabul and Bagram, and then leave by the end of 2016, allowing Mr. Obama to say he ended the Afghan war before leaving office. |
| America’s NATO allies are expected to keep 4,000 troops of their own in Afghanistan in 2015, American officials said. At a meeting of the alliance’s defense ministers in Brussels on Wednesday, NATO officials did not announce any specific commitments from member countries, although Georgia, which is not a member, has offered a battalion of soldiers. The allies are expected to follow the American lead in consolidating and withdrawing their troops. | America’s NATO allies are expected to keep 4,000 troops of their own in Afghanistan in 2015, American officials said. At a meeting of the alliance’s defense ministers in Brussels on Wednesday, NATO officials did not announce any specific commitments from member countries, although Georgia, which is not a member, has offered a battalion of soldiers. The allies are expected to follow the American lead in consolidating and withdrawing their troops. |
| The United States could still have military advisers in Kabul after 2016 who would work out of an office of security cooperation at the American Embassy. But the White House has not said how many military officers might be based there or what their precise role would be, and some critics have questioned how effective they and private contractors would be in mentoring Afghan forces, especially if Taliban attacks make it difficult to get around the country. | The United States could still have military advisers in Kabul after 2016 who would work out of an office of security cooperation at the American Embassy. But the White House has not said how many military officers might be based there or what their precise role would be, and some critics have questioned how effective they and private contractors would be in mentoring Afghan forces, especially if Taliban attacks make it difficult to get around the country. |
| American officials said Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the commander of American and allied forces in Afghanistan, supported the plan to keep 9,800 troops in 2015 and to consolidate them by 2016. “What was outlined was not a withdrawal plan, it’s a transition,” General Dunford said at the NATO meeting in Brussels. | |
| In outlining their plans, both American and NATO officials are operating on the assumption that Afghanistan would sign a security agreement with the United States that has already been negotiated, as well as one that is still to be worked out with the alliance. President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign the agreement, but he will leave office after his successor is chosen in a runoff election scheduled for July; both candidates in the runoff have indicated that they would sign. | In outlining their plans, both American and NATO officials are operating on the assumption that Afghanistan would sign a security agreement with the United States that has already been negotiated, as well as one that is still to be worked out with the alliance. President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign the agreement, but he will leave office after his successor is chosen in a runoff election scheduled for July; both candidates in the runoff have indicated that they would sign. |
| But there is considerable doubt about the wisdom of announcing that American troops would leave by the end of 2016. An assessment of Afghanistan’s forces ordered by Congress and prepared by the Center for Naval Analysis, a federally financed research center that is part of the CNA Corporation, concluded that the Taliban would probably “become a greater threat to Afghanistan’s stability in the 2015-18 time frame than it is now.” But it said that Afghan forces would still be falling short in many important areas, including mobility, air support, logistics, intelligence gathering and analysis, communications and the ability to recruit Afghans with specialized skills. The report, issued in January, said foreign assistance and advisers would be needed “through at least 2018.” | |
| Not all former officials are opposed to a public deadline for withdrawing American forces. James N. Miller, who succeeded Ms. Flournoy as the Pentagon’s top policy official before leaving the government in January, said a deadline would send a message of urgency to the Afghans and to America’s allies. | Not all former officials are opposed to a public deadline for withdrawing American forces. James N. Miller, who succeeded Ms. Flournoy as the Pentagon’s top policy official before leaving the government in January, said a deadline would send a message of urgency to the Afghans and to America’s allies. |
| “There are significant risks in any approach, and the option that the president chose is a reasonable balancing of those risks,” Mr. Miller said. “It means that we are going to have to work very hard in partnership with the Afghans to build their capacity, and with the Pakistanis to constrain the Taliban and go after Al Qaeda.” | “There are significant risks in any approach, and the option that the president chose is a reasonable balancing of those risks,” Mr. Miller said. “It means that we are going to have to work very hard in partnership with the Afghans to build their capacity, and with the Pakistanis to constrain the Taliban and go after Al Qaeda.” |
| But other former officials said that international aid efforts might dry up as soon as American troops depart, and that it would be harder to gather intelligence and take action against residual Qaeda threats in the region when American forces and bases have gone. | But other former officials said that international aid efforts might dry up as soon as American troops depart, and that it would be harder to gather intelligence and take action against residual Qaeda threats in the region when American forces and bases have gone. |
| Mr. Obama said last week that the American mission would include “disrupting threats posed by Al Qaeda.” That appeared to be a more modest goal than the one the White House set in a March 2009 paper, “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan.” A spokeswoman for the National Security Council insisted that the White House’s basic goals had not changed. | Mr. Obama said last week that the American mission would include “disrupting threats posed by Al Qaeda.” That appeared to be a more modest goal than the one the White House set in a March 2009 paper, “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan.” A spokeswoman for the National Security Council insisted that the White House’s basic goals had not changed. |
| Ms. Flournoy expressed concern about how effective the advisory effort would be once American forces are pulled back to Kabul and Bagram at the end of 2015. | Ms. Flournoy expressed concern about how effective the advisory effort would be once American forces are pulled back to Kabul and Bagram at the end of 2015. |
| “They basically have a year with the Afghan divisions, working daily,” she said in an interview. “After that, they probably have a concept that they will be engaging with them on major exercises or will have mobile teams going out to visit. But it is not a situation in which you are living, breathing and eating with them every day.” | “They basically have a year with the Afghan divisions, working daily,” she said in an interview. “After that, they probably have a concept that they will be engaging with them on major exercises or will have mobile teams going out to visit. But it is not a situation in which you are living, breathing and eating with them every day.” |
| Another concern is how to monitor the billions of dollars the United States still plans to spend to support Afghan security forces after American troops leave. Administration officials say that advisers working out of the embassy can manage the job. But Marc Chretien, who served as a civilian adviser to Gen. John R. Allen, the allied commander in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2013, said the tight withdrawal timeline would make oversight much more difficult. | Another concern is how to monitor the billions of dollars the United States still plans to spend to support Afghan security forces after American troops leave. Administration officials say that advisers working out of the embassy can manage the job. But Marc Chretien, who served as a civilian adviser to Gen. John R. Allen, the allied commander in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2013, said the tight withdrawal timeline would make oversight much more difficult. |
| A better way to wind down the war, Mr. Chretien said, would be a “stairstep” approach, with American troops leaving in stages based on periodic reviews of the Afghan military’s performance and the Taliban threat. | A better way to wind down the war, Mr. Chretien said, would be a “stairstep” approach, with American troops leaving in stages based on periodic reviews of the Afghan military’s performance and the Taliban threat. |
| What the Pentagon and NATO once promised would be an “enduring presence” in Afghanistan after 2014, he said, has turned “into a diminishing presence that may bear no relationship to ground realities.” | What the Pentagon and NATO once promised would be an “enduring presence” in Afghanistan after 2014, he said, has turned “into a diminishing presence that may bear no relationship to ground realities.” |