BIDEN PLANS TO STAY IN AFGHANISTAN PAST MAY 1 DEADLINE
By Matthew Petty, Responsible Statecraft.
March 25, 2021 | EDUCATE!
Above photo: A coalition force member provides security for Afghan soldiers
deploying within Afghanistan on March 4, 2013. The deployment process is
part of the transition of security to the Afghan National Security Force
before coalition forces depart in 2014. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Matthew
Freire.
The Biden administration is planning to keep U.S. forces in Afghanistan past
an agreed-upon May 1 deadline to withdraw, the chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee said Wednesday to a panel hosted by Foreign Policy.
"It's a general feeling that May 1 is too soon, just logistically," Rep.
Adam Smith (D-Wash.) claimed, citing conversations with administration
officials. "You cannot pull out ten thousand plus troops in any sort of
reasonable way in just six weeks."
Under the terms of the Doha Agreement signed with the Taliban in February
2020, the United States is obligated to pull its forces out of Afghanistan
by May 1 this year. Smith said that the Biden administration wants to
"negotiate past May 1" in order to explore its options.
"Job one is to try to get back in to talk to the Taliban about at least
giving us more time," he added.
"It is a purely logistical argument," Smith clarified in response to an
audience question, noting that he thinks "the Biden administration is
skeptical" that the Taliban or a future Afghan unity government "could be
comfortable with our presence" in the long run.
There are roughly 3,500 U.S. troops and 7,000 allied forces in Afghanistan
as part of the mission to shore up the U.S.-backed Afghan government against
Islamist rebels. Last week, it was revealed that the U.S. government had
been undercounting its troop presence by about 1,000 service members.
After helping the Afghan government fight the Taliban for nearly two
decades, the United States opened a peace process with the rebel group in
2018. The Taliban agreed in 2020 to cease attacks on foreign forces in
exchange for a full withdrawal - a bargain the rebels have held up - and
U.S. forces have even begun to partner with the Taliban against the Islamic
State.
There have been no U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan since the agreement was
signed. Experts warn that the Taliban could go on an "all-out offensive"
against foreign troops if the United States breaks its end of the deal.
Laurel Miller, director of the Asia program at the International Crisis
Group, told Wednesday's panel that "you can't roll back the clock to the
time before the Doha agreement.just because someone wants something better."
The intra-Afghan peace process has not gone so smoothly, as the Taliban
ramps up its attacks on pro-government forces. The Biden administration has
now begun a diplomatic blitz to try to resolve the Afghan civil war.
"Afghanistan is likely to spiral into more violence," Quincy Institute
executive vice president Trita Parsi and senior fellow Adam Weinstein argued
in a Tuesday op-ed. "President Biden must accept the logical conclusion of
this reality: The only variable he can control is whether American soldiers
will be the target of that violence or be safe at home with their families."
Lisa Curtis, director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for
a New American Security, told the Wednesday panel that "the risks are simply
too high to go to zero troops."
"The Taliban would be able to retake power in twelve to eighteen months,"
she contended. "You would see a convergence of terrorists from around the
world in Afghanistan."
Curtis acknowledged that staying in Afghanistan would expose U.S. forces to
attack, but said that the United States "could answer the Taliban in kind."
Smith, however, argued that "the risk is lower" from terrorism than it was
in the 1990s-and that diplomacy was key to fighting the global terrorist
threat.
"If you pull out of Afghanistan, it sends the message that you get that"
about diplomacy, he said. "In the past twenty years, we have relied too much
on the military and too much on thinking that if you kill enough people it
will be okay."
And he was blunt about the risks of breaking from the peace process: "If we
are there in large numbers, we are vulnerable.we are going to lose lives."