U.S. works to define post-2014 role in Afghanistan

U.S. works to define post-2014 role in Afghanistan

U.S. servicemembers board a plane to Afghanistan near Kyrgyzstan's capital, Bishkek, on March 27.

By Vyacheslav Oseledko, AFP/Getty Images

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration hopes a new agreement spelling out the American role in Afghanistan after most combat troops leave in 2014 will dampen fears that the United States is turning its back on the country, officials say.

The absence of an agreement about the U.S. r ole after 2014 is "causing anxiety in the region," Marc Grossman, special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said during a panel at the U.S. Institute of Peace. "People don't know what's going to happen."

The agreement will create a "framework" for a long-term security and economic commitment. "We're not walking away as we did in the '90s," said Gavin Sundwall, the U.S. Embassy spokesman in Kabul.

The United States assisted Afghan fighters in their successful drive to rid their country of Soviet overlords in the 1980s but offered no support to the country after the Soviets left, and Afghanistan spiraled into civil war. The Taliban emerged from the chaos to seize control in 1996.

Talk of the United States removing most of its combat troops in 2014 has raised similar fears among Afghans, foreign policy analysts say.

"The one thing we have not done a good job with is articulating what our enduring commitment and strategic interest is in the region," said Jeffrey Dressler, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.

Instead the administration has kept "the narrative on withdrawal," he said.

Analysts say the administration is trying to find a middle ground in an election year between touting the draw-down in Afghanistan while assuring the region it is committed to the country.

"I think they will continue to walk this middle line," said Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst with Brookings Institution.

Talks on a troop presence beyond 2014 got underway this week after U.S. and Afghan officials reached a separate agreement on the oversight of night raids. The Afghan government had criticized the conduct of the raids, and the issue had been an obstacle to holding talks on the broader long-term agreement with the United States.

The agreement will probably not get into specifics such as troop levels after 2014 or the legal protections U.S. troops will operate under. Subsequent agreements will cover that ground, Sundwall said.

The United States has an agreement with Afghanistan that gives the American military jurisdiction over U.S. citizens accused of a local crime. For example, the Army staff sergeant accused of 17 counts of murder in connection with the kil ling of Afghan civilians will be tried under the U.S. military criminal justice system. He is in a military prison in the USA.

The current status-of-forces agreement has no expiration date, the Pentagon says, but Afghanistan may want to change the arrangement for 2014 and beyond. The Pentagon has said any agreement must contain legal protections for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, so they are not at the mercy of a developing judicial system.

The Obama administration has said the failure to reach a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq led to withdrawal of U.S. forces there last year. Critics such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have said the failure was due to foot-dragging by the White House.

Analysts say they do not expect a similar result in Afghanistan because President Hamid Karzai wants some U.S. forces to remain. "Karzai needs us more than the Iraqis did," O'Hanlon said. "Karzai watched us leave Iraq. If I were Karzai, I wouldn't want to push my luck too far."