The US Will Economize in Afghanistan

The troops will leave, but the U.S. will continue to support Afghanistan for 10 years. This is the core of the strategic partnership to which both sides have agreed. The document does not reveal details about whether America will preserve its military presence, and if so, how much money it will spend on helping Afghanistan. The main point of the agreement is not to give Afghanistan over to the Taliban, Pakistan or Iran.

After several months of negotiation, the U.S. and Afghanistan have completed an agreement of strategic cooperation. The agreement foresees that the U.S. will continue to support Afghanistan for 10 years after combat troops depart in 2014.

The agreement was signed this past Sunday by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker and Afghan national security adviser Rangin Spanta. The agreement will be completed upon final ratification by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and American President Barack Obama.

The text of the agreement has not been published. But as The New York Times emphasized, it certainly will play an important role in the transitional period, when the U.S. ends its direct military presence and evolves into simply a military ally for Afghanistan.

In order to reach an agreement, it was necessary to search for a compromise on two difficult questions: First, who would have control over the prisons where terrorists are held? Second, would the U.S. and its coalition partners have the right to, without informing Afghan security forces, conduct night-time raids against the Taliban? Judging by what has been reported in the mass media, in both cases Washington assessed the mood of the Afghans and made concessions to them.

An even more important factor in discussions surrounding the agreement has been geopolitics. Afghanistan’s neighbors Pakistan and Iran are protesting against Washington’s plans to preserve long-term ties with Afghanistan. Pakistan is looking forward to an outcome in which the Taliban will once again reign over Afghanistan after the American exit. Tehran also has no reason to hope America, their implacable enemy, remains close to Iran’s borders.

The agreement has a highly symbolic character. This is because it does not reveal details about what military forces America will preserve in Afghanistan after 2014. This will likely be clarified at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago. There, a decision will be made about how much money the alliance members plan to send to Afghanistan.

As long as the U.S. hadn’t concluded an agreement of strategic partnership with Afghanistan, its NATO allies didn’t want to assume any responsibilities for financial or military aid to Afghanistan. But now that the U.S. has sternly stated that Afghanistan will not be thrown to the mercy of fate, they must come up with the cash, even if it is done with much gnashing of teeth.

White House insiders are already licking their chops at the happiness the American public will feel from lessening payments to Afghanistan. Currently, the U.S. spends $110-120 billion a year on the Afghan War.

It is legally proper to ask: If the Kabul agreement does not contain concrete, binding numbers and responsibilities for America’s role, will the Taliban interpret this as a signal to strengthen their attack on the Afghan government? Western diplomats in Kabul have stated that the opposite is true: the agreement will serve as a warning to the Taliban. They will know that the U.S. will not wash its hands clean of Afghanistan, as happened in the 1990s after the retreat of Soviet forces.

Whether the West’s expectations are justified or not, Moscow does not have much of a say in the matter. As is obvious from public statements of Russian leaders, we also do not want a return of extremist forces in Afghanistan. Russia must show cooperation with NATO in the process of evacuating its military forces and continue to monitor the situation in this long-suffering country.