President Obama’s decision to keep U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan through the end of 2016 is good news for U.S. military commanders and others who argued against the “zero option.” U.S. troops will now be able to continue training and counter terrorism missions in Afghanistan for two more years, rather than having to withdraw by this December.
Yet make no mistake: this decision may be slower and gentler than the “zero option,” but it is still a path to zero. The 9,800 U.S. troops that remain in Afghanistan at the beginning of 2015 will continue to conduct those two important missions in Kabul and key regional cities. But that force will be cut in half by the end of 2015, which will limit those missions to Kabul and Bagram. And by the end of 2016, the only remaining U.S. troops will be those working in the Office of Security Cooperation in the U.S. Embassy.
The challenge facing U.S. commanders in Afghanistan, then, is to use this limited time to ensure that the Afghan National Army (ANA) can operate as effectively as possible without U.S. assistance. While ANA troops and small units have improved a lot in recent years, they still lack the enabling forces, logistics, and staff capabilities needed to fully function on their own. Perhaps counterintuitively, U.S. forces can best help them achieve this goal by removing themselves almost completely from ANA operations, even on the support side, and helping the Afghans figure out the best workarounds and solutions to the problems that inevitably emerge.
The ANA needs to demonstrate that it can truly act independently for reasons that extend far beyond the battlefield. To be blunt, the Afghan government cannot afford to maintain the ANA. The United States and its international partners have been footing the bill, and they are likely to continue doing so as long as there are U.S. troops on the ground. But those funds may well dry up when those troops depart at the end of 2016. Congress will be reluctant to continue signing billion-dollar checks at that point under any circumstances, but will certainly not do so if the ANA has not proven that it can operate independently by then.
Drawing down to zero by December 2016 will certainly protect U.S. interests better than drawing down to zero by December 2014. But the clock is still ticking loudly, with a tremendous amount that needs to be accomplished in an ever-shrinking period of time.
More from CNAS
CommentaryThe Pandemic and the Protests: Necessity and Perception of the National Guard
COVID-19 has demonstrated the flexibility and dedication of guardsmen and the necessity of adequate funding....
By Nathalie Grogan
PodcastCOVID-19 Has Forced The Army To Rethink And Step Up Its Virtual Recruiting Efforts
The Army is holding its first nationwide virtual recruiting campaign, after the COVID-19 pandemic forced it to scale back face-to-face interactions and revealed gaps in its di...
By Emma Moore
VideoThe Pitch: A Competition of New Ideas
On June 17, 2020, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) hosted its premier event to elevate emerging and diverse voices in national security. Sixteen applicants made t...
By Richard Fontaine, Michèle Flournoy, Michael J. Zak, Loren DeJonge Schulman, Shai Korman, Carrie Cordero, Kristine Lee, David Zikusoka & Cole Stevens
CommentaryWhy your next university president should be a veteran
Robert L. Caslen’s tenure as president at the University of South Carolina was nearly over before it began. When he started his presidency in August 2019, he faced dissen...
By Emma Moore & Barrett Y. Bogue