Withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan
Introduction:
In an interview with the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP), he said the foreign forces did not have any
option except to withdraw from Afghanistan.
The AIP had sent written questions to him through email. The Herb-e-Islamic chief said they
were ready to hold talks with all the stakeholders to chalk out a plan for the unconditional
withdrawal of foreign forces.
Hekmatyar said the ongoing hostilities could not be stopped unless the independence of
Afghanistan was guaranteed and the Afghans were given the right to decide their fate.
About the proposed strategic agreement between the US and Afghanistan, he said the Afghan
government was not legitimate and could not ink such an agreement on behalf of the Afghan
nation. He said the Afghan government was a “puppet” and it did whatever the US asked it to
do.
Hekmatyar said his group had held talks with the Afghan government and the US on different
occasions but these contacts didn’t yield a clear and realistic plan. “The Kabul government is
powerless and the Americans too have no plan that is acceptable to the Afghan nation and the
mujahedeen,” he opined.
About his reaction if the Afghan government and Wolsey Jirga agreed to allow the US to set up
military bases in Afghanistan, he said neither the Afghan government nor the Wolese Jirga had
the right to make such a decision.
“The decision will be made in Washington,” he said, adding his group would continue fighting
the foreign forces till their withdrawal from Afghanistan. To a question about the Bonn
Conference, he said it was aimed at justifying the occupation of the foreign forces.
About his plan for solving the Afghan conflict, he said: “The foreign forces should withdraw
from Afghanistan under a reasonable timeframe acceptable to the mujahideen. They should
first pull out from cities and populated areas, deploy the troops at military bases and then leave
the country. The security should be handed over to the Afghan National Army and Afghan
National Police. The foreign forces should have no right to conduct military operations, raid
houses and arrest innocent people.”
“The power should be transferred to a temporary government acceptable to all parties. If they
could not agree on the caretaker government, then changes should be made in the present
Afghan government to make it acceptable to all sides,” he suggested. [1]
Monday, January 16, 2012
The International new.
The U.S. has to make up its mind now on Afghanistan:
It may be fair to argue that the last thing the nation needs at the start of an election year is yet
another budget crisis and another decade of war. Yet this is the path the United States appears to
be taking in Afghanistan. U.S. officials are talking about removing all American troops from
Afghanistan and about massive cuts in military spending as part of the “transition” to Afghan
control of combat and civil governance operations in 2014. Given the lead times involved in
funding and implementing such massive changes within two to three years, Washington really
has only a few months in which to decide whether we will take on the burden of funding the
Afghan government through 2014 and beyond, and whether we will provide most of the funds,
advisers and partners that Afghan forces will need until 2020 and beyond.
There has been near silence about these issues from the Obama administration and every
Republican presidential candidate. Yet working studies from the U.S. and British governments,
the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank show that the withdrawal of U.S. and
allied troops from Afghanistan could plunge that country into a recession or depression by the
end of 2014 unless Kabul receives a massive new aid package. Afghanistan would need major
assistance to compensate for the phase-out of U.S. and allied military spending that has kept its
economy alive during the past 10 years of war, to pay for the services its government must
provide to win and retain the loyalty of its people, to pay for the military and security forces it
must develop, and to sustain the government until the Taliban and other insurgents are defeated
or accept a political settlement.
The Afghan government raised this need in a paper circulated at the international conference in
Bonn, Germany, last month, but its call for aid got little attention in the international media or
among U.S. politicians. President Hamid Karzai requested some $10 billion a year through 2025
for a program that set ambitious goals for security and development. He called for equally
ambitious reforms and improvements in governance and for the Afghan government to achieve
full independence by 2030.
The Afghan government paper tracked closely with World Bank studies showing just how
critical such aid will be; given that U.S. and allied forces are due to leave in 24 to 36 months and
that an Afghan presidential election is to be held in 2014.
The Karzai government estimated that the cost of continued spending on development and
governance would equal 14 percent of the Afghan economy in 2015 and that at least 9 percent of
its gross domestic product would have to come from foreign aid. The government further
estimated that the cost of security would amount to 26 percent of Afghanistan’s gross domestic
product — costs driven by the 357,000 men in the Afghan forces we are seeking to create.
The money the Afghan government estimates it will need to pay for the required military and
civil spending in its budget equals about half of the Afghan economy in 2015. That figure rises to
62 percent if the development spending needed in addition to other spending in the budget is
considered. This is far more than the $10 billion a year in the Afghan aid request. And the Karzai
government is all too correct in warning in its paper that “Substantial funding cuts in any of these
areas undermine our ability to achieve our shared goal of a secure, sustainable Afghanistan.”
The question for the United States and its allies — particularly the American people, who would
have to pay 80 percent or more of the necessary aid — is whether they are willing to make a
$140 billion commitment in assistance to cover the period through at least 2025. In addition, will
they provide U.S. and allied forces to fight on through 2014 and then provide the thousands of
military advisers and partners — some of whom will have to go into combat? Afghanistan will
need such military support for more than a decade after 2014 — unless Pakistan puts an end to
insurgent sanctuaries within its borders and/or the insurgents accept a political settlement that is
less than victory. Without such continued spending and military aid, the war in Afghanistan is
certain to be lost. And given the track records of the Pakistan government and the poor and
corrupt quality of Afghan governance, it may be lost in any case.
Now is the time to debate these issues and the future level of the U.S. commitment in money and
forces. We do not need more good intentions and vague promises from the Obama
administration. We do not need a vacuous set of positions from Republican presidential
candidates who either do not understand the issues or fear addressing their cost. If the United
States is to make this commitment we need to start making it now in every part of our posture
and spending in Afghanistan — and be clear that we will do so through 2025. If not, we need to
be honest about the consequences for some 30 million Afghans and their country. [2]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/more-money-and-forces-for-
afghanistan/2012/01/13/gIQAuLcJxP_story.html
US to stay in Afghanistan:
US commander in Afghanistan Gen. John Allen said on Tuesday the American troops were going
to stay in the country well beyond 2014. In an interview for “60 Minutes,” CBS Evening News
anchor Scott Pulley sat down in Kabul with the new US commander, and asked about the plan.
“Well, the plan is to win. The plan is to be successful. And so, while some folks might hear that
we’re departing in 2014 as a result of the Lisbon Conference and the process of transition,
we’re actually going to be here for a long time,” Allen said.
The number of troops that will remain is yet to be determined, Allen said, adding that any
remaining troops will have to come as part of an agreement with the Afghans. “We’re talking
about forces that will provide an advisory capacity. And we may even have some form of
counter-terrorist force here to continue the process of developing the Afghan’s counter-
terrorism capabilities, but, if necessary, respond ourselves,” Allen said.
The White House on Wednesday endorsed Gen Allen’s words, saying they reflected the US
policy, TV channels reported. The spokesperson said the US troop’s withdrawal and transfer of
charge to the Afghan forces would take place in phases.
There are 90,000 American troops in Afghanistan, and President Obama plans to withdraw
about one-third by next summer. In a CBS News poll, CBS asked Americans i f the war has been
mostly a success: 39 percent said yes, but 50 percent said no. Asked whether US forces should
be decreased, 62 percent said yes. [3]
Thursday, December 22, 2011
http://www.thenews.com.pk
US have failed to achieve goals in Afghanistan:
Chief of Herb-e-Islamic Gulbuddin Hekmatyar on Sunday said the US had failed to achieve its
goals in Afghanistan and the Afghan government was on the verge of collapse.
In an interview with the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP), he said the foreign forces did not have any
option except to withdraw from Afghanistan.
The AIP had sent written questions to him through email. The Hezb-e-Islami chief said they
were ready to hold talks with all the stakeholders to chalk out a plan for the unconditional
withdrawal of foreign forces.
Hekmatyar said the ongoing hostilities could not be stopped unless the independence of
Afghanistan was guaranteed and the Afghans were given the right to decide their fate.
About the proposed strategic agreement between the US and Afghanistan, he said the Afghan
government was not legitimate and could not ink such an agreement on behalf of the Afghan
nation. He said the Afghan government was a “puppet” and it did whatever the US asked it to do.
Hekmatyar said his group had held talks with the Afghan government and the US on different
occasions but these contacts didn’t yield a clear and realistic plan. “The Kabul government is
powerless and the Americans too have no plan that is acceptable to the Afghan nation and the
mujahedeen,” he opined.
About his reaction if the Afghan government and Wolsey Jirga agreed to allow the US to set up
military bases in Afghanistan, he said neither the Afghan government nor the Wolsey Jirga had
the right to make such a decision.
“The decision will be made in Washington,” he said, adding his group would continue fighting
the foreign forces till their withdrawal from Afghanistan. To a question about the Bonn
Conference, he said it was aimed at justifying the occupation of the foreign forces.
About his plan for solving the Afghan conflict, he said: “The foreign forces should withdraw
from Afghanistan under a reasonable timeframe acceptable to the mujahedeen. They should first
pull out from cities and populated areas, deploy the troops at military bases and then leave the
country. The security should be handed over to the Afghan National Army and Afghan National
Police. The foreign forces should have no right to conduct military operations, raid houses and
arrest innocent people.”
“The power should be transferred to a temporary government acceptable to all parties. If they
could not agree on the caretaker government, then changes should be made in the present Afghan
government to make it acceptable to all sides,” he suggested
Obama details plan to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan:
President Obama announced that the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan will begin with
10,000 troops this year, plus another 23,000 by the end of next summer. Gains have been made
against the Taliban, he said, but the fight against al Qaeda will continue wherever necessary.
s plan for a US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan – set to begin in a matter of weeks – is more
than military leaders advised, but less than growing numbers of Americans want.
The broad outline: Of the roughly 100,000 US forces in Afghanistan today, 5,000 would begin
coming out this summer, followed by another 5,000 by the end of the year. By the end of next
summer, another 23,000 would return to bases in Europe and the United States – in essence a
total drawdown of the 33,000-troop “surge” ordered by Obama in 2009.
“We are meeting our goals…. We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength,” Mr.
Obama said. “Al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11.” [4]
http://www.christianpost.com/news/withdrawal-of-american-troops-in-afghanistan-commences-
with-ceremony-
Military officials say the withdrawal of American troops will impose limits on which areas of the
country can be pacified. In particular, plans to pivot extra American troops from south and
southwestern Afghanistan to volatile areas in the east, along the Pakistan border, will be curtailed
or even canceled, officials said.
The effort to transfer responsibility for security to Afghan forces remains elusive because the
Afghan troops are proving unprepared for the job. Corruption in the government of President
Hamid Karzai continues to be rampant, sapping the confidence of many Afghans.
Still, the growing disenchantment in the United States with the war, particularly given the
ballooning national debt, the countries slow economic recovery and the whopping $120 billion
price tag of the Afghan conflict this year alone, were all considerations weighed by the president.
“Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war at a time of rising debt and hard
economic times,” Mr. Obama said. “Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource: our
people.”
Republican presidential candidates including Mitt Romney and Jon M. Huntsman Jr. are
demanding a swift withdrawal from Afghanistan, while Democrats complain that the cost of the
war is siphoning money away from efforts to create jobs in the United States. Representative
Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, called on Mr. Obama to speed the withdrawal. “If
we’re going to leave, we should leave,” he said in a statement. “The centralized system of
government foisted upon the Afghan people is not going to hold after we leave. So let’s quit
prolonging the agony and the inevitable.”
Highlighting the unusual political splits the war is causing, other Republicans criticized the
president for pulling out too soon. Representative Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who is
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that Mr. Obama was playing politics
with the troop reduction, saying, “The president is trying to find a political solution with a
military component, when it needs to be the other way around.” He said the situation in
Afghanistan was “very precarious,” and that the White House seemed to be panicking about the
levels of violence.
Mr. Obama’s speech, delivered at dawn on Thursday, Kabul time, is expected to be the subject of
a speech by Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, scheduled for later in the day. Senior figures
in Mr. Karzai’s administration began signaling that they were comfortable with the withdrawal
of 10,000 troops by year’s end.
Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said the Afghan National
Army “has this capability and quantity to fill the gap of those places where the foreign troops
withdraw and leave Afghanistan.”
“We are ready,” General Azimi said.
Muhammad Siddique Aziz, an adviser to Mr. Karzai on tribal affairs, said the withdrawal plan
was acceptable, but he warned against a complete withdrawal of American troops before the
Afghan government was strong enough to administer the country on its own. “I think they have
to concentrate more on the Afghan government so when they leave, the government can stand up
on its own,” Mr. Aziz said. [5]
http://www.nytimes.com/
Published: June 22, 2011
U.S. President Barack Obama announced his plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan
this year and bring home all 33,000 U.S. “surge” troops by next summer in a televised speech on
Wednesday night.
The first U.S. soldiers would begin returning home next month, in line with the deadline set by
Obama in December 2009, when he authorized the surge of U.S. troops to break the Taliban's
control in Afghanistan.
"After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan
Security forces move into the lead," Obama said.
"Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be
complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security," he said.
The United States had made significant progress on meeting its three goals for the surge: denying
al-Qaeda a safe-haven, reversing the Taliban's momentum and training the Afghan security
forces to defend their own country, the president said.
Calling the surge "one of the most difficult decisions that I've made as president," Obama said
the drowndown will start "from a position of strength.”
Outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates endorsed Obama's withdrawal plans.
"I support the president's decision because it provides our commanders with enough resources,
time and, perhaps most importantly, flexibility to bring the surge to a successful conclusion,”
Gates said in a statement issued following Obama’s speech.
The United States is the largest contributor to the 48-nation International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF), which currently has more than 130,000 troops in Afghanistan. The international
coalition has been fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan since 2001, but attacks on foreign
and Afghan troops, police, and civilians are still frequent.
In his speech, Obama stressed that the Unites Stats would continue its efforts aimed at
eliminating Al Qaeda, which is currently “under more pressure than at any time since 9/11” due
to the killing of its leader Osama bin Laden. [6]
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110623/164781371.html
23/06/2011
US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan 'will not be increased for
electioneering:
American military chiefs will resist any further withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan for
"electioneering" purposes, it can be disclosed.
While the end of 2014 has been given as the timeline for combat troops to withdraw there was a
"very strong chance" that the Americans would leave in earlier and in greater numbers, sources
in London said.
It is understood that Mr. Obama will want to make an announcement on bringing more troops
home next May at a NATO summit in his home town Chicago.
But American generals have already made it known privately that they "do not want
electioneering to get in the way of the draw down", a senior source said. "They will not let the
mission be jeopardized for electoral or political gain," he added.
Afghan officials insist that a force of at least 20,000 troops should remain behind in Afghanistan
after the 2014 deadline to provide support to the 352,000 Afghan security forces. Britain
indicated it will only leave a "few hundred" and that the bulk of the mission will have to come
from America.
At a conference in Kabul on Saturday President Hamid Karzai gave his approval for a limited
number of foreign forces to remain in Afghanistan.
Mr. Karzai also won the endorsement of tribal elders to negotiate a 10-year strategic partnership
with the US that would ensure the presence of American troops after 2014. However, conditions
were imposed and the Afghan parliament must approve it.
The suggestions of an earlier than expected American withdrawal has left the Ministry of
Defence in a quandary over Britain's position in Afghanistan. "We are working closely with the
Americans but we will also have to tailor our plans with theirs, they will have to dovetail," one
official said.
Troops from Western countries are already beginning to leave Afghanistan.
The Danes, who formed a strong arm of the British force in Helmand, will cease combat
operations by Christmas.
Ray Mabus, the US Navy Secretary, visited London last month for talks in the Ministry of
Defence, from which he reported that there had been "a dramatic improvement in the security
situation" in Afghanistan allowing for withdrawals to begin.
"We are working closely with you [the UK] and other allies to ensure we do it in a coordinated
way and not each one of us doing it one-off," he said.
The American commander in Helmand, Major Gen John Tool an indicated in an interview with
The Daily Telegraph earlier this month that the force of 20,000 marines in the province could be
slashed to 6,000 by next year.
This would lead to Britain, with its 9,000 troops in Helmand, becoming the major foreign
military power in again. Military planners are now assessing the impact of the American
reduction and whether British troops would have to return to previously volatile outposts such as
Sangin, Musa Qala and Now ad. [7]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8902443/US-elections-2012-US-
troop-withdrawal-from-Afghanistan-will-not-be-increased-for-electioneering.html
The American leadership positioned in Afghanistan was confident that it had turned the Taliban
tide in the country. It was reluctant to lose that advantage by too precipitous a withdrawal. One
indication of success was the relative quite in the southern districts bordering the province of
Baluchistan in Pakistan. According to a recent New York Times report, “ The poppy harvest is
over and the fighting have not returned in their usual numbers to intensify the war”. This change
in what had been the normal pattern was ascribed to the presence of large American troops in the
region. The change was palpable not only in the province of Helmand that had been since long a
strong base of support for the Taliban. It was also apparent in the neighboring province of
Kandahar , the heartland of the insurgency. “ In both places, the insurgency is now mostly
limited to small groups of local fighters who lay mines or carry out assassinations or suicide
bombing in the cities, more attacks that are mote important psychologically than strategically,”
said the same report.
The United States and NATO aimed to build up the Afghan Army and the police to a force of
395,000 by 2014, the year by which all foreign troops were to leave the country. But at the issue
war the competence and loyalty of the Afghan force. Loyalty became a real concern once some
soldier trained by the US and NATO turned their weapons on their benefactors. According to
another NYT report, ‘ since March 2009, at least 57 people including 32 American troops have
been killed in at least 19 attacks in which Afghan service members had turned their weapons on
coalition forces. Another 64 were wounded. More than half of the casualties in the first five
months of this year, signaling an escalation in the number and intensity of the attacks. But while
the Taliban often take for these attacks, NATO officials say the majority of the episodes stem
from disagreement and argument that escalate into violence.”
10,000 U.S. troops leave Afghanistan:
President Obama's order to withdraw 10,000 American troops from Afghanistan this year has
been accomplished, a little more than a week before the year-end deadline, military officials said
Thursday.
The drawdown is the first step in the plan to wind down the war, transition security to Afghan
forces and end the combat role for international troops by the end of 2014.
It also gives the Obama administration a second war-related accomplishment to tout this month
— coming just a week after U.S. officials marked the end of the war in Iraq and the last convoy
of American soldiers rumbled out of that country into Kuwait.
Officials say there are now 91,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan — down from the peak of 101,000
in June.
In December 2009, Obama announced he was sending an additional 33,000 U.S. troops to
Afghanistan in a bid to beat back the escalating Taliban insurgency and change the course of the
war. Six months ago, declaring that the "tide of war is receding," Obama said he would withdraw
10,000 troops by the end of this year, and another 23,000 by the end of next summer.
The decision was met with initial opposition from military leaders who thought the withdrawal
was too much, too soon, particularly since it would pull troops out before the end of next year's
fighting season, which can last well into October and even November.
Last week, however, during a trip to Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta repeatedly
told troops that the U.S. had reached a turning point in the war. And at one point he went so far
as to say, "I really think that for all the sacrifices that you're doing, the reality is that it is paying
off and that we're moving in the right direction. … We're winning this very tough conflict here in
Afghanistan."
Contrasting that assessment is the continuing violence in Afghanistan's east, along the Pakistan
border, and the high-profile attacks and assassinations that continue to wreak havoc in and
around Kabul. The violence is compounded by worries about government corruption, the fragile
economy, and fears that Afghan forces won't be ready to take over security of the country as
American and NATO troops leave.[8]
ww.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-22/troops-withdrawal-afghanistan/
U.S. military officials say that President Barack Obama's order to withdraw 10,000 American
troops from Afghanistan this year has been accomplished, a little more than a week before the
year-end deadline.
The pullout is the first step in the U.S. military's plan to wind down the war, hand over security
to Afghan forces and end the combat role for international troops by the end of 2014.
It also gives the Obama administration a second war-related accomplishment to tout this month
— coming just a week after U.S. officials marked the end of the war in Iraq and the last convoy
of American soldiers rumbled out of that country into Kuwait.
Officials say there are now 91,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan — down from the peak of 101,000
in June. [9]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347175/10000-u.s-troops-withdrawn-from-
afghanistan/
December 22, 2011
Withdrawal from Afghanistan: 40,000 Troops to Leave War Zone by End of
2012:
Afghanistan -- Drawdown plans announced by the U.S. and more than a dozen other nations will
shrink the foreign military footprint in Afghanistan by 40,000 troops at the close of next year,
leaving Afghan forces increasingly on the frontlines of the decade-long war.
The United States is pulling out the most – 33,000 by the end of 2012. That's one-third of
101,000 American troops who were in Afghanistan in June, the peak of U.S. military presence in
the war, according to figures provided by the Pentagon.
Others in the 49-nation coalition have announced withdrawal plans too, while insisting they are
not rushing to leave. Many nations have vowed to keep troops in Afghanistan to continue
training the Afghan police and army in the years to come. And many have pledged to keep
sending aid to the impoverished country after the international combat mission ends in 2014.
Still, the exit is making Afghans nervous.
They fear their nation could plunge into civil war once the foreign forces go home. Their
confidence in the Afghan security forces has risen, but they don't share the U.S.-led coalition's
stated belief that the Afghan soldiers and police will be ready to secure the entire nation in three
years. Others worry the Afghan economy will collapse if foreigners leave and donors get stingy
with aid.
Foreign forces began leaving Afghanistan this year.
About 14,000 foreign troops will withdraw by the end of December, according to an Associated
Press review of more than a dozen nations' drawdown plans. The United States is pulling out
10,000 service members this year; Canada withdrew 2,850 combat forces this summer; France
and Britain will each send about 400 home; Poland is recalling 200; and Denmark and Slovenia
are pulling out about 120 combined.
Troop cutbacks will be deeper next year, when an estimated 26,000 more will leave. That figure
includes 23,000 Americans, 950 Germans, 600 more French, 500 additional Britons, 400 Poles,
290 Belgians, 156 Spaniards, 100 Swedes and 50 Finns.
Gen. James F. Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, told the AP that the number of Marines
in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan will drop "markedly" in 2012, and the role of those
who stay will shift from countering the insurgency to training and advising Afghan security
forces. [10]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/withdrawal-from-afghanistan_n_1117972.html
January 16, 2012
Withdrawal of American Troops in Afghanistan Commences With
Ceremony:
Undress of American families breathed a sigh of relief yesterday as the first troops
to leave Afghanistan as part of the U.S. drawdown started packing for home
Reports say 650 members of the Iowa National Guard’s 1st Squadron 113th regime who oversaw
the area of Parwan, held a ceremony officially marking their transfers from the military base.
In a ceremony located on a tented basketball court at the military base, soldiers beamed as a
speaker read out a list of all of regime 113th’s accomplishments.
Their highlights, according to AP, included: 14 high-value targets killed or captured, 52
consecutive days of keeping insurgent fire out of the Bagram base, 3,800 combat missions
completed, and a total of 400 Afghan police officers trained.
When asked their sentiments on the war a majority of troops expressed opposite views of the
general American public who feel that America have no business in foreign countries.
Pfc. Scott Silverblatt tells the AP, “If we leave, we’ve just messed up the whole country all over
again. [11]
Thu, Jul. 14 2011
http://www.christianpost.com/news/withdrawal-of-american-troops-in-afghanistan-
commences-with-ceremony-
India fears quick US withdrawal from Afghanistan after bin Laden's death:
India may nervously wonder if Osama bin Laden's death will hasten a triumphalism US
withdrawal from Afghanistan and leave New Delhi exposed to an unfriendly, Pakistan-
dominated neighborhood and unfettered militancy in its backyard.
For India, bin Laden's death deep in Pakistan confirmed what it had long suspected: that a so-
called Western ally was turning a blind eye to militant networks on its soil, a fear reinforced by
the 2008 Pakistani militant attacks on Mumbai.
But even more worrying for New Delhi would be any sign that the US president, Barrack
Obama, will use the death to speed up the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, leaving a
vacuum that its nuclear-armed foe Pakistan and the Taliban may only be to happy to fill.
A senior Indian government source, who declined to be named, said in reference to the situation
post-bin Laden: "The clear issue is the need to focus on the situation in Afghanistan.
"No one wants a precipitous withdrawal of international forces in Afghanistan. There is still
much work to be done."
Both India and Pakistan, which have gone to war three times since 1947, have sought for decades
to secure leverage in Afghanistan, a Central Asian geopolitical crossroads. That desire has
gained urgency after Mr. Obama's tentative timeline to start to withdraw military forces from
July.
Siddhartha Varadarajan, an associate editor at The Hindu newspaper, said: "India's eyes will be
more on the US than Pakistan. India will be looking at the end game".
The US administration, after eliminating its top target in the region, has publicly said it is
committed to Afghanistan. But Washington politicians and observers say there is little doubt
pressure will fall on Mr. Obama for a withdrawal of troops as he battles a budget deficit and an
upcoming election campaign.
The Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, has spent political credit on dialogue with
Islamabad, seeing any peace deal as the crowning achievement of his premiership, despite a
trend of having his fingers burned by Pakistan.
His olive branch in 2006 was dashed by the Mumbai carnage, an attempt to kick-start talks in
Egypt in 2009 was pilloried by the Hindu nationalist opposition at home, and the news of bin
Laden's Pakistan sanctuary came only weeks after Mr. Singh's "cricket diplomacy" initiative.
That rapprochement will continue. While Indian newspapers reveled in a chorus of Pakistani
condemnation, a carefully worded statement from the prime minister appeared to keep India on
course for dialogue despite the lack of trust.
"India works on the assumption Pakistan will continue to deceive. The government will continue
to engage with the full knowledge Pakistan is colluding with the bad guys," Mr. Varadarajan
said.
New Delhi fears a return to the 1990s in Afghanistan, when both a civil war and Taliban control
fostered militant groups in the region and fuelled attacks on India.
Harsh V Pant of the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, said: "New Delhi has
been contemplating the impact of a US withdrawal from Afghanistan for while. If the US left
lock, stock and barrel, India would be left to pick up the pieces."
India is Afghanistan's biggest regional aid donor and its $1.3 billion (Dh4.77bn) of projects, from
building a parliament to a highway to Iran, shows what Indian officials like to call their "soft
power" to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan. [12]
May 5, 2011
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/south-asia/india-fears-quick-us-withdrawal-from-
afghanistan-after-bin-ladens-death?pageCount=
Afghanistan's future
It takes a lot for the grinding conflict in Afghanistan to make bigger headlines than the
Republican presidential contest, but recent news about that country has made even the
Romney-Gingrich slugfest pale in importance. First, and most dramatically, a new National
Intelligence Estimate suggests that little progress has been made over the last year in improving
security or boosting the country's government or military capabilities. Just as disheartening was
the release of a video that appears to show four U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of slain
Taliban fighters. Finally, word has emerged of a recent diplomatic shift that could lead to the
renewal of peace talks with the Taliban. [13]
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/13
The first phase of withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan began in July, in preparation
for a full transition of power to Afghan forces in 2014. While some welcome the beginning of
the end of the war, others worry that hard-fought progress will be lost as troops leave. [14]
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/01/140118088/afghanistan-future-uncertain-as-us-drawdown-loom
September 1, 2011