|
|
|||||
| Ajmal Shams | |||||
Having completed their combat mission in Afghanistan on December 31, 2014, the remaining US forces are planning to pull out completely by 2016. But Afghan President Ashraf Gani questioned the time-frame while speaking to CBS television last month. “Deadlines concentrate the mind. But deadlines should not be dogmas,” Gani said, adding that “If both parties or, in this case, multiple partners, have done their best to achieve the objectives and progress is very real, then there should be [a] willingness to re-examine a deadline”.
The Afghan president seems confident that United States President Barack Obama will have to reconsider the originally planned schedule for a complete exit by 2016. Unlike his predecessor Hamid Karzai, Gani is on much better terms with America. He managed to sign the long awaited Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) a day after being inaugurated as president.
While there has been no official reaction from the US side to the latest revelations by Gani regarding the timeline for the complete withdrawal, there is every reason to suggest that both parties will cooperate to achieve common objectives. Gani’s emphasis on a prolonged US stay suggests that Afghanistan might need even more time to benefit from the new support role of the US forces, post 2016. In consonance with the Afghan leadership, the US military is also of the opinion that the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) have made substantial progress and now have the necessary capacity to take full responsibility after the American withdrawal. Yet, the Afghan leadership would like to reap the full benefits of transition from the International Security Assistance Forces (Isaf), in which the US has the major share, to the ANSF. The presence of US forces will have a stabilising effect, enabling Afghanistan to further strengthen the capability of its security machinery.
The Taliban’s sees the US drawdown, switching from combat to a support role and ultimately full exit by 2016, as a victory for itself, and as American weakness. It is important to note that 2014 was one of the deadliest years for Afghanistan in terms of both civilian and ANSF casualties. Yet, both Kabul and Washington are not disappointed at all and the pull-out is seen as a logical step towards the accomplishment of the mission.
Afghanistan may also be cognizant of the changing security paradigm in the wake of gradually increasing influence of Daesh (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) across the Middle East; the group is also making inroads into South Asia. Gani has already expressed his concerns that Daesh poses a threat to his country. Latest reports suggests some presence of the Daesh supporters in parts of Afghanistan. It might be too early to make a judgment on whether Daesh will manage to make a niche for itself in the country; indications are that the threat does exist. Since the group is more brutal than the Taliban and Al Qaida, Afghanistan might be getting ready for another long battle — this time against Daesh — if the militia gains a foothold. Let’s hope this does not happen.
Absence of sustainable peace
True to his campaign promises, Gani has put peace-building at the top of his national priorities. And rightly so, as no development agenda can materialise in the absence of sustainable peace. And Afghanistan needs peace desperately. Gani understands the significance of engaging his neighbour, Pakistan, in any efforts for negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban. His high profile visit was well received in Pakistan, signalling a major shift in Pakistan’s strategy towards the Taliban and how to deal with them. There seems to be an increasing sense of improved understanding between the two countries on bilateral cooperation to fight terrorism.
The Peshawar school tragedy might have been an eye-opener for Pakistan, which had previously seemed to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban. A potential consensus between the two neighbours to fight the common enemy will support and further legitimise prolonged US presence in Afghanistan after the 2016 deadline.
One must also note that in 2016 Obama will complete his last term in office. He had promised the American people that he would end the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan during his presidency. Although the US might be back in Iraq to help Baghdad crack down on Daesh, in Afghanistan, Obama might be trying to leave no active military conflict for his successor. Thus, the plan by the US to fully exit from Afghanistan by 2016 seems to be politically motivated to support the Democrats in the presidential elections.
An overstaying of the US forces past 2016 will also give credence to the notion that the former is committed to the security of Afghanistan and will not let it down. Regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat president occupies the White House after 2016 election, any policy on Afghanistan must respond to the changing security scenario and the rapidly evolving political environment that supports the interests of both Afghanistan and the US. Most importantly, US extension of its troops would showcase its commitment to Afghanistan’s security as part of its enduring presence enshrined in the Strategic Pact Agreement signed between Afghanistan and the US.
Ajmal Shams is President of the Afghanistan Social Democratic Party better known as Afghan Millat National Progressive Party and is based in Kabul, Afghanistan. He served as Policy Advisor to President Ashraf Gani when he chaired the security transition commission. He mainly writes on political and developmental issues.
