Putting the Future of U.S. Involvement in Afghanistan in Congress' Lap

[bigtree]

The U.S.-Afghan agreement signed by President Obama and Afghan leader Karzai yesterday appears to put responsibility for further American military involvement in Afghanistan beyond 2014, directly in the hands of the U.S. Congress.

In the agreement, it specifies that:

Beyond 2014, the United States shall seek funds, on a yearly basis, to support the training , assisting, advising, and sustaining of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), so that Afghanistan can independently secure and defend itself against internal and external threats, and help ensure that terrorists never again encroach on Afghan soil and threaten Afghanistan, the region, and the world.

also,

. . . the United States shall seek on a yearly basis, funding for social and economic assistance to Afghanistan

.

The most important message President Obama wanted to send in Afghanistan was that the U.S. military is moving out. The exit may not be as soon as critics of the American military posture and policy, within and without the country. would like to see. It may also not be as complete a removal of American troops after 2014 as many would hope.

However, there is an unmistakable air of separation in this tenuous, but incontrovertibly definitive outline of the limits of U.S. (and Afghan) tolerance for American-led dominance over Afghanistan's future security or stability.

There is an agreement that Afghanistan will gain more control over the aid and assistance the U.S. provides; for the first time, channeling at least 50% of the resources provided directly through the Afghan government.

Importantly, there is a provision that the agreement is still subject to approval by the respective governments.

The agreement shall enter into force when the parties notify one another through diplomatic channels of the completion of their respective internal legal requirements necessary for the entry into force of this agreement.

To me, all of that should mean that Congress would be compelled to vote on the document. If there's any chance of continuing U.S. involvement in Afghanistan (military or otherwise) beyond the 2014 withdrawal deadline, the White House (and supporters of Afghan aid and assistance) will need to do more than just deploy troops and justify our involvement and resources on the basis of military operations.

They will need Congress to step up and take responsibility for this framework of increased Afghan sovereignty and independence; still nation-building at an advantageous and accepted distance, but much less of an autocratic endeavor centered around the ambition and impetus of the nation's Commander-in-Chief. Congressional members need to take advantage of this opportunity to direct and influence policy toward Afghanistan in every instance of money requested and approved.

It appears that President Obama is certainly handing them that opportunity with this Strategic Partnership Agreement.




President Barack Obama participates in a bilateral meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the Presidential Palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, May 1, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

[DCKit]

1. "...channeling at least 50% of the resources provided directly through the Afghan government."

'Cause Karzai hasn't stolen quite enough already? He wipes his butt with Ann RMoney's $900 silk T-shirts.

[bigtree]

2. it's a definite retreat

. . .along with the expectations in the agreement about Afghan government reform and action on Afghan corruption. Pipe dreams. Yet, I think this agreement represents reality; in the sense that there will never be a perfect end to this military occupation, nor will there be some perfect solution to all of the competing and conflicting desires of the U.S. government, intelligence, and military in Afghanistan. I think this document is an acknowledgement of that. If Congress thinks differently, it should weigh in when the hat is passed for handing over more money for the Karzai regime to lord over.

[bigtree]

3. kick