"US Military Battling To Stay In Afghanistan Past 2014" - The Guardian

"Afghanistan and the US have opened talks to keep American troops in the country  after most Nato forces go home in 2014, but the thorny question of immunity for  American soldiers, which in effect ended the US role in Iraq last year, is  likely to prove a stumbling block.  

The issue has been thrown into sharp relief by the Seattle trial of the US  army staff sergeant Robert Bales, who is accused of the massacring 16 Afghan  civilians, mostly women and children, during a shooting spree at their homes in  March. US prosecutors are seeking the death penalty but many Afghans, including  some of the victims' relatives, want to see him brought before one of their own  courts."  The Guardian

Read more:  http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-battling-to-stay-in-afghanistan-past-2014-2012-11#ixzz2CgJcMgUR

------------------------------------------------------------

This is going to go exactly the same way as the negotiations with Iraq went over a SOFA.  This is not a mutual security pact.  That kind of agreement was not a problem in Iraq.  A SOFA gives US forces legal extra-territoriality while in a given foreign country.

The case of SSG Bales is illustrative of the point of a SOFA.  Without a SOFA the Afghan government could demand that Bales be handed over for trial under Islamic law.  Actually, they could demand that any soldier be handed over  for any charge they wanted to make.

The wonkery across the world, the anti-Americans, the naive, etc., would probably think that a great idea.  Why should soldiers not be thrown to "the dogs"  or "the wogs"  if that is convenient.  After all, they are soldiers.  Isn't that the purpose for which they exist?  If they were worth more they would be working for a thinktank in Washington.

In spite of such sentiments, the SOFA problem will kill negotiations for a continued US presence.  The US military will not accept a SOFAless agreement and neither will the US population and its representatives in Congress.

Karzai may think that our desire for SOF basing in his "country," will cause us to bend on this.  It will not.  The generals, the wonks and the business looters may think that the "good times" will "roll on."  They will not.

Sooo, the US presence in Afghanistan will end at the end of 2014.  It will be lonely in the embassy.  pl  

 

Comments

[Charles]

Col Lang,
I have an idea. Why not let all of the new mercenaries stay instead of our Armed Forces. Someone sees a profit in staying so let them stay. Bring home our troops and let the people making the money accept the risk for a while. I wonder how long they would last without the Armed Forces shielding them from the local population.

Regards,

[mbrenner]

You cogently have made the case why the pursuit of a long-term American military presence, based on a SOFA, is unrealistic. It also is without defensible purpose. To deal with a recrudescent terrorist threat to the United States? There is no such threat in the offing. The Taliban never were interested in attacking us; they only kill Americans in Afghanistan. The ghosts of al-Qaida past haunting their old bases? That danger is no greater there than in a dozen other places around the world. We have the means to address that conjectured threat if and when it materializes.

In truth, American security strategy remains on automatic pilot - directed by the bearings set in 2001. Namely, we want "full spectrum dominance" in every region of the world. We want to extirpate Islamic fundamentalism. We want to "contain" China. We want to exploit our superior military strength because we're lousy at diplomacy and we have no economic assets to deploy.

I do not find these reasons convincing. At least, they should be clearly and frankly articulated so that the nation can debate them Instead, the country gets all caught up in the tactics, the incremental shifts, the personalities. It is the strategic assumptions that are the problem.

[turcopolier]

mbrenner

Yes. We need a different non-interventionist foreign policy. that will do a lot of things for us in the budget area since the forces should be sized to fit foreign policy. This does not mean that we should stop hunting terrorist enemies. In my post I addressed the issue of whether or not there would be US forces in Afghanistan after 2014. pl

[ISL]

I would imagine that just as the US operates in the Pakistani borderlands and many other areas without particular concern for sovereignty or whether drone assassinations are in (or not) US interest, the US will take a similar approach to Afghanistan.

Personally I think potential terrorists should be captured and tried in a court of law as I see one future day kill teams from some competitor nation when the US is no longer ascendent using our precedent against American citizens (a cyber punk/terminator kind of a future), but I also see no debate on such tactics happening in our politics.

I too can imagine the US creating a coherent foreign policy and set of objectives, but it only seems likely in my imagination as the last 4 or 12 years have shown no such sign. Instead, I see US foreign policy attempting to have it all on borrowed treasury (similarity to the Ottoman empire), an no sign the beltway crowd's desired austerity will create any reassessment.

[turcopolier]

ISL

It will not be possible to operate from Afghanistan without Afghan permission any more than it is to operate from Iraq without Iraqi permission. pl

[Peter]

Without the U.S.S. Gravy Train being able to dock in Afghanistan due to a failure of reaching a SOFA, I'm almost ready to bet a box of precision loaded 17cal Remington that Karzai signs a SOFA. But, if Karzai signs SOFA the long knives come out within 60 days. So, no matter what there will be no SOFA.

I'm sure the Mayor of Kabul has lots of U.S. Treasury looted loot spread around the globe. Karzai knew the Gravy Train would be in port for a limited time from the first deployment of regular Army troops on the ground. Now with just two more years of easy looting left, Karzai must be getting very bold and super greedy, along with the other thieves.

I'm curious if the Chinese are successful in mining those minerals they lust for.

[confusedponderer]

Actually, the US are brilliant at diplomacy. My boss, an Indian, at the UNFCCC always expressed deep professional respect for American diplomats and their savvy negotiating. We talked a lot about John Bolton at the time and came to the conclusion that he was an astute negotiator, albeit of the subversive and malicious kind.

To the extent that US diplomacy is seen as lousy, it is because the US **choose** not to negotiate. The US **choose** to use preferably use military force.

In the beginning I thought the US leadership was secretly decilinist themselves and tried to use their military edge as long as they have it. The encirclement of Russia and China suggested that to me.

Now I just think it is American Exceptionalism run amok with fire and sword (no filthy compromises with evil - interaction through the cleansing fires of war instead - and in that regard the views of Neo-Wilsonians and Neocons are about the same), coupled with Madeleine Albright's expressed sentiment what good that splendid US military is when one doesn't use it, and that dead civilians in some godforsaken place are often times worth it.

The US use military force because she can. The US expand into central Asia because she can. To me, there is no apparent coherent strategy, just jumping on perceived openings and opportunities.

[turcopolier]

Peter

I thought that Maliki would sign the SOFA and learned from my mistake. I, too, thought that the temptation oresented by US largess would prevail but it did not. Iraq nationaism and xenophobia prevailed. IMO the same thing will occur in Afghanistan. Extra-territoriality is a red flag on which is written colonialism. we got that in the countries we conquered in WW2, aand the relationship was continued in various mutual defense pacts during the cold War. this is very different. pl

[Paul Escobar]

ISL,

I agree with the sentiment in your second paragraph...but not the reasoning.

There is no international "court of law". There is simply ignorance, impotence...and public relations for the rest.

If the U.S.' primary "rivals" were ever to "ascend", I doubt they would even bother with public relations.

If we reject things like drone strikes against Pakistan, it should be because Matthew 7:1-5 condemns such hypocrisy:

"There is no country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders." - President Obama, quoted in The Guardian.

[ISL]

paul escobar:

I heard that quote, and had to laugh, supposedly Obama is very intelligent, so it must be hubris.

"There is no country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders." President Obama.

Dear Colonel: Would a lack of a SOFA (agreed its likely) preclude ship-launched missions from targetting in the AfPak border area?

[turcopolier]

ISL

You could do that, but the number would be reduced. like everythung else in the military sphere, capabilities are governed by space/time/equipment factors. you could also use aircraft, manned or not, from other parts of the world. pl

[Fred]

BHO must be glad Gaza is not a country, 'those' people still don't matter.

[Charles I]

The chance to finally exercise a little sovereignty against the invader would be overpowering to me, and I suspect many. I think it was naive to expect easy SOFAs after so much political incompetence and a decade of collateral damage.

[Charles I]

I think you are correct. It will be drones and assassinations all around

[jonst]

OFF Topic Post...I ask you pardon, in advance for doing so. But I wanted to take an opportunity to salute Warren Rudman...he died yesterday. I fear his kind will rarely been seen anymore, in Congress. I disagreed with him on many an issue....but man oh man, will the Nation miss men like him.

And he would have readily understood the premise behind the Col's post here. Oh boy would he have understood it.

[DH]

Colonel, it came as a relief when we actually did leave Iraq, having had visions of Korea and Germany dancing in my head. And just think of all the money we poured into those beautiful bases.

Here's an alternate take saying we should have stayed. Note that the comments go 6-2 against the author, who posits that Obama's insistence upon approval of SOFA by the Iraqi Congress was misguided:

"The Obama administration's reluctance to apply influence, in addition to its apparent abandonment of allies from the Sunni Awakening, are inexplicable, given the value of a politically stable Iraq in a region beset by rising Iranian influence and resurgent Salafist-Jihadist terrorism."

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/11/iraqi_politicians_backed_into.php#ixzz2CmhxnxK4

[Peter]

I keep thinking about how so many folks in Afghanistan have come to rely on the industry built up around the looting of the U.S. effort, and how the collapse of that particular economic engine is going to affect so many. The rational mind says keep the U.S. effort in place to keep the looting economy in place.

If there is a SOFA reached, the secret price that Karzai extracts for his tribe will be breathtaking. Having a SOFA hold if reached is another topic when that happens.

I just keeping thinking of the alleged price of Aviation fuel forward deployed being worth $400.00 a gallon and higher.

[Fred]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/20/nato-france-ends-afghan-combat/1716807/

Seems the French have no trouble with leaving.

[Charles I]

People are not rational. Karzai - surely he'll reach a point when he's more tired than wealthy already, ready to retire. We haven't achieved, I believe, any lasting effect in our interests mooted as reason for war, or end of war, and it seems apparent to me we shall not now. SOFA, no SOFA, NATO's going, Special Forces on suppression and kill missions will not fill that political vacuum on the ground.

The locals know it, and a lot more that we don't. I think they are more like the stock market than us, have already factored events to date into future business plans, and are ready to move on, have moved on. By the time its public knowledge, the market's already moved, knowledgeable profits taken, suckers welcome.

[confusedponderer]

"If we reject things like drone strikes against Pakistan, it should be because Matthew 7:1-5 condemns such hypocrisy:

"There is no country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders." - President Obama, quoted in The Guardian."

Tragically, the irony is lost on the US administration, and probably, if the lack of general outrage is any indication, the American electorate also.

[Thomas]

CCTV had a story on yetserday about a commerical crash in leasing construction equipment around Kabul. The owner of one of the businesses said he was making 11 million a year off one crane (and giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was in local currency it is still $243,363 with hundreds of pieces of equipment on his lot).

When the journalist asked him what he would do in the future, he said probably leave the country. One can see a future real estate sales boom in Dubai for 2013-14.

[Charles I]

Canada ended its mission too. Parliament voted on a transition to strictly training, non-combat, 2014 withdrawal. Turns out that didn't include an unknown number of special forces and other personnel seconded to other nations, who are still in combat, we learned this summer well after the vote.

[Peter]

When the Looting Economy sputters and wheezes will there be a rapid exodus? Or a slow boiling that puts a frog to sleep or so quickly in fact that any commercial means of escape gets shut down due to AA action at the airports? Of course Karzai and company will have some heavy U.S. paid for protection and a very big fast jet plane on standby. I'd chuckle if the SOFA is rejected that the U.S. paid for private security is pulled away from Karzai at a pre-determined date and time, like 00.01 hours June 1st 2013. Let Karzai use some of that looted loot for hired foreign guns. Of course it's going to pain me to see Karzai on the paid lecture/cocktail circuit after the fall.

[Harper]

In the past few days, the Obama Administration has gone to the UN to have 19 Taliban leaders names removed from the terrorist list, so that these Taliban negotiators can get passports to travel to Doha or wherever the talks will take place to reach a deal with Taliban over the future of Afghanistan, post-US withdrawal at the end of 2014. Nine other Taliban have been released from jail in Pakistan and given their passports to also join in the negotiating festivities. I think this further punctuates the point being made by Col. Lang. We are going and are probably about to try to throw the keys to the kingdom back to the very Taliban that we overthrew in 2001. History can be a real bitch. The hubris of assuming that we could go into Afghanistan, remake it in the image of Beverly Hills, turn it into an American style modern democratic state, and leave the conquering heroes is beyond words.

[confusedponderer]

If the US act like the Israelis, these leaders will be killed by drone strikes before they can sign a truce.