Saturday, December 06, 2014

Up to 1,000 more US troops may remain in Afghanistan

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Saturday confirmed the Obama administration will leave up to 1,000 more troops than originally planned in Afghanistan beyond year’s end,as the United States and NATO nations scramble to ensure a new international mission to support Afghan forces is launched on time.

Hagel, in his final visit to Afghanistan before stepping down as Pentagon leader, said President Obama had given the military some flexibility to cope with “any temporary force shortfall” stemming from other NATO nations’ difficulties in delivering troops on time.

“This will mean the delayed withdrawal of up to 1,000 U.S. troops — so that up to 10,800 troops, rather than 9,800, could remain in Afghanistan through the end of this year, and for the first few months in 2015,” Hagel said at a news conference alongside Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

Officials said the delay in the NATO deployment was due to a dispute this summer over the outcome of Afghanistan’s presidential election, which in turn postponed ratification of agreements needed to keep foreign forces here after Dec. 31, the deadline for ending NATO’s combat mission.

But Hagel said the shift in troop numbers, along with a recent White House decision to expand some authorities for remaining U.S. forces, would not alter Obama’s framework for putting an end to the U.S. role in the 13-year Afghan war.

Under a plan announced in May, the number of American troops was supposed to fall to 9,800 by Jan. 1, 2015. By the time Obama leaves office in 2017, only a small force attached to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul would remain.

“Essentially President Obama has just bought some time for the process to catch up,” Hagel said.

But the new U.S. plans in Afghanistan do reflect the challenges of curtailing the U.S. military role in Afghanistan. This country is still reliant on foreign forces for air support, logisitics, intelligence and military funding to fight the ongoing insurgency.  Read More at Washington Post

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home