Factions within the Obama administration are pushing to keep no more than a few thousand troops in Afghanistan after the military coalition folds at the end of 2014, a footprint that would make it hard to deliver on promises the United States has made to Afghans, according to U.S. officials.
As the debate over the size and scope of the post-2014 mission nears its end, some in the administration are pressing for a residual force that could be as small as 2,500, arguing that a light touch would be the most constructive way to cap the costly, unpopular war.
Those troop levels are significantly lower than the force some senior military officials have advocated, arguing that a sudden disengagement could lead to the collapse of a frail state and the onset of a new civil war. The low number also is a far cry from figures in the 10,000-to-30,000 range discussed among NATO allies and some U.S. officials as recently as a year ago.
The scope and size of a postwar force is at the top of the agenda for Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s visit to Washington this week, which will include a meeting with President Obama on Friday.
White House officials said Tuesday that they have not ruled out leaving no troops at all when the U.N. security mandate that sanctions the international coalition expires, saying they might find non-military means to meet U.S. objectives in Afghanistan.
The United States has committed to continue supporting Afghanistan’s security forces and intends to maintain counter-terrorism capabilities that would prevent al-Qaeda from regaining a foothold in the country where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned.
“There are of course many different ways of accomplishing those objectives, some which might involve U.S. troops, some of which might not,” Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor for strategic communication, told reporters in a conference call Tuesday afternoon.
Some senior military officials and analysts have pressed for a more robust force, arguing that a hasty disengagement would be reckless and could lead the country’s security forces to crumble. The United States has invested $50 billion in training and equipping the Afghan army and police.
Others argue that a small, well-managed contingent could accomplish the administration’s key objectives while markedly lowering America’s profile in a region where anti-U.S. sentiment runs high.
“The real question is what kind of mission we’re looking at,” said a senior defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing deliberations. “The challenge will be the temptation to keep doing many of the things we’ve been doing.”
Determining the size of a possible post-2014 force is the first step to chart out the withdrawal time line for the remaining 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon. Keeping troops there after after 2013 would require a bilateral agreement stipulating the authority of the contingent and legal protections its members would enjoy — thorny questions that Obama and Karzai are expected to tackle this week.
As the debate over the size and scope of the post-2014 mission nears its end, some in the administration are pressing for a residual force that could be as small as 2,500, arguing that a light touch would be the most constructive way to cap the costly, unpopular war.
Those troop levels are significantly lower than the force some senior military officials have advocated, arguing that a sudden disengagement could lead to the collapse of a frail state and the onset of a new civil war. The low number also is a far cry from figures in the 10,000-to-30,000 range discussed among NATO allies and some U.S. officials as recently as a year ago.
The scope and size of a postwar force is at the top of the agenda for Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s visit to Washington this week, which will include a meeting with President Obama on Friday.
White House officials said Tuesday that they have not ruled out leaving no troops at all when the U.N. security mandate that sanctions the international coalition expires, saying they might find non-military means to meet U.S. objectives in Afghanistan.
The United States has committed to continue supporting Afghanistan’s security forces and intends to maintain counter-terrorism capabilities that would prevent al-Qaeda from regaining a foothold in the country where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned.
“There are of course many different ways of accomplishing those objectives, some which might involve U.S. troops, some of which might not,” Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor for strategic communication, told reporters in a conference call Tuesday afternoon.
Some senior military officials and analysts have pressed for a more robust force, arguing that a hasty disengagement would be reckless and could lead the country’s security forces to crumble. The United States has invested $50 billion in training and equipping the Afghan army and police.
Others argue that a small, well-managed contingent could accomplish the administration’s key objectives while markedly lowering America’s profile in a region where anti-U.S. sentiment runs high.
“The real question is what kind of mission we’re looking at,” said a senior defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing deliberations. “The challenge will be the temptation to keep doing many of the things we’ve been doing.”
Determining the size of a possible post-2014 force is the first step to chart out the withdrawal time line for the remaining 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon. Keeping troops there after after 2013 would require a bilateral agreement stipulating the authority of the contingent and legal protections its members would enjoy — thorny questions that Obama and Karzai are expected to tackle this week.