The President’s decision to retain an initial residual force in Afghanistan of 9,800 troops represents a step forward in America’s efforts to succeed in that country. But his announcement of a rigid deadline for withdrawal of those troops may well mark two steps back.
It is clear today that the Afghan national security forces are not yet fully capable of handling the array of security challenges facing their country, and an enduring component of nearly 10,000 American troops – supplemented by diplomats, intelligence personnel and contractors – can go a long way toward helping those forces succeed. And yet the President’s withdrawal timeline appears based on the administration’s clock, rather than conditions on the ground.
It is understandable that the administration wishes to draw down the American presence in Afghanistan. The United States has been at war there for nearly thirteen years, the human and financial costs have been enormous, and the outcome thus far has been ambiguous at best. The conflict has grown unpopular with the American people, with nearly 50 percent saying it was a mistake in the first place.
At the same time, policy decisions like the one announced today must be aimed not only at those who seek the war’s end but also those – among the Taliban, on Pakistan’s side of the border, and elsewhere – that wish it to continue. In this, the withdrawal timeline should be driven by conditions on the ground, the development of the Afghan national security forces, and an assessment by American leaders about whether and how remaining coalition forces can help ensure that Afghanistan does not return to a sanctuary for international terrorism.
A calendar-based withdrawal risks encouraging the Taliban to wait America out and Afghanistan’s neighbors to further hedge their bets. Deciding now to reduce to zero in 2016 risks eliminating most American leverage once all troops depart, similar to what is occurring in Iraq today.
Perhaps, over the coming months, the administration will build new flexibility into the rigid timeline outlined today. Americans wish to see an end to the long war in Afghanistan, but the way in which that conflict concludes is of greater significance still.
More from CNAS
PodcastStories from the Backchannel: Season Two Trailer
By Ilan Goldenberg, Richard Fontaine, Susanna V. Blume, Kayla M. Williams, Price B. Floyd, Kurt Campbell & Kara Frederick
CommentaryAmerica never committed to training Afghan forces. I know because I tried.
I first met Maj. Sboor in 2009 as he waited to take over his own Afghan army battalion. We were working together as operations officers of partnered Afghan and U.S. infantry u...
By Dr. Jason Dempsey
VideoCNAS: Bold Ideas for National Security
This year, CNAS experts brought bold ideas and bipartisan cooperation to the national security conversation. In 2020, the CNAS team will continue tackling the biggest security...
By Susanna V. Blume, Kara Frederick, Kayla M. Williams, Loren DeJonge Schulman, Richard Fontaine, Kristine Lee, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Ely Ratner, Paul Scharre, Elizabeth Rosenberg & Carrie Cordero
CommentaryThe ACFT and the Problems with the Military's Cult of Physical Fitness
A new hurdle for U.S. Army recruitment and retention is coming in the form of the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), scheduled to become the Army's physical test by October 2020...
By Emma Moore