Michele Flournoy and Stephen Hadley write to the New York Times, in the name of the bipartisan national security consensus.
Your March 9 editorial “No Cause to Delay the Afghan Pullout” ignores the compelling logic of a broad, bipartisan consensus in the national security community and Congress: that a full United States military withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016 will unnecessarily squander hard-won gains of the last 13 years and fall short of what is necessary to protect our security in the future.
Why We Need to Keep Forces in Afghanistan
They use a phrase with considerable consequence.
The United States has an enduring national interest in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for transnational terrorists.
Afghanistan Analysts Network writes of the media silence on the recent Human Rights Watch Report on the system of impunity for war crime and other human rights abuse in Afghanistan. The system traces back to the U.S. support of the old mujahideen warlords, from the time of invasion.
Many of these commanders had well-documented records of human rights abuses in Afghanistan’s post-Soviet civil war. The Northern Alliance’s political representatives dominated the 2001 Bonn Conference, which laid the foundation for a process that prioritized accommodating commanders and warlords over accountability.14
“Today We Shall All Die”: Afghanistan’s Strongmen and the Legacy of Impunity, Human Rights Watch
Afghanistan Analysts Network observes that many of the commanders profiled in the Human Rights Watch report are of a new generation, coming from the array of U.S.-backed paramilitary organizations.
Among the worst violators are the commanders of militia-like paramilitary forces that, as Human Rights Watch puts it, are “often informally known as ‘campaign’ forces, and carry such designations as Afghan Security Guards, Afghan Guard Forces, Afghan Security Forces, and Critical Infrastructure Police” or have emerged from the universe of the Afghanised private security companies, those who enjoyed lucrative logistics and guarding contracts from the US military and others.
Impunity and Silence: The meagre reaction to the latest HRW report, Afghanistan Analysts Network
The whole plan is intended to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for transnational terrorists.
Pounding Afghanistan into dust with cruise missiles and long-range bombers might make Americans feel better about the Manhattan horror. But such cathartic vengeance would do nothing to curb the menace of transnational terrorism.
Beating the terrorists, Guardian, September 13, 2001
The public, like the politicians and service chiefs, seems content to put the war away in a box and not talk about it.
The Guardian view on war in Afghanistan: not mission accomplished, only mission over, Guardian, March 13, 2015
The United Kingdom held commemoration ceremonies, marking what is called the end the war. The
Guardian says there should now be a public assessment of what has been done in Afghanistan.
It is not enough to feel relieved that the war is over or to draw comfort in the feeling that it could have been worse. There must be a public assessment of what was achieved in Afghanistan.
But not too much assessment.
That does not mean a second Chilcot. Nobody wants that, not least because public opposition to the Afghan war was always more conditional than in the Iraq case.
The Associated Press announces that the United States will not be withdrawing forces from Afghanistan this year.
The Obama administration is abandoning plans to cut the number of US forces in Afghanistan to 5,500 by year’s end, bowing to military leaders who want to keep more troops, including many into the 2016 fighting season, US officials say.
While no final decision on numbers has been made, the officials said the administration is poised to slow withdrawal plans and probably will allow many of the 9,800 American troops to remain well into next year. There also are discussions about keeping a steady number of counterterrorism troops into 2015, including options under which some would remain in the country or be nearby beyond 2016.
White House drops plans to reduce US forces in Afghanistan to 5,500 this year, Associated Press
The official announcement of the plan not to withdraw troops, here announced unofficially from official sources, may come later this month.
Officials say Barack Obama probably will use a Washington visit by Afghan president Ashraf Ghani this month as the time to announce his decision on a new withdrawal timeline.
US officials familiar with the debate said it’s not clear yet whether the White House will agree to a small, symbolic decrease by the end of this year or insist on a larger cut. They note that there is some stiff opposition to any change, largely from national security adviser Susan Rice.
White House drops plans to reduce US forces in Afghanistan to 5,500 this year, Associated Press
Reuters, in reporting on what the Associated Press had reported, adds a bit of caution.
The United States has abandoned plans to cut the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 5,500 by year's end, the Associated Press reported on Saturday, but a senior U.S. official told Reuters no decision has been made.
Report: U.S. to Slow Afghanistan Withdrawal, Reuters
Electricity in Kabul has been reported out, since the avalanches in the Panjshir valley three weeks ago.
According to power officials, electricity may be restored in three days.
Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat (DABS), the state-owned electricity supplying company, said that 90MW electricity was restored and work is underway at Salang to repair the remaining transmission lines within next three days.
Power restoration to Kabul in three days: DABS, Afghanistan Times
According to power officials, electricity may be restored in three weeks.
"In three weeks electricity will be supplied to Kabul residents, as soon as the transmission lines are fixed," Chairman of DABS, Mirwais Alimi, said.
Power Shortages to Continue in Kabul for Three Weeks, Tolo
In writing on the Human Rights Watch report, Emma Graham-Harrison picked up on a line that the rise of the abusive strongman networks was not inevitable.
“The rise of abusive political and criminal networks was not inevitable,” the report said. “Short-term concerns for maintaining a bulwark against the Taliban have undermined aspirations for long-term good governance and respect for human rights in Afghanistan.”
Afghanistan officials sanctioned murder, torture and rape, says report, Guardian
It's a commonly-expressed opinion, and an anguished one: What have we done?
She writes now about leaving Kabul after four years, with hope mingled with guilt.
Fear has been clogging the city for years, through escalating layers of checks and guards, and more and more blocked-off roads. Each attack brings a tightening of controls, and they are rarely relaxed. A visit to my old office, on a street that was open to drivers when I first arrived in the city, now requires slow passage on foot through razor wire and blast walls, then a full body, bag and ID check.
The daily frustrations are exacerbated by fraying infrastructure, much of it built with western cash and expertise with little thought for long-term sustainability. It is struggling now, as support drains away.
The first big snowfall of the winter destoyed a pylon bringing electricity from Central Asia. No one knows when it might be repaired, and while Kabul waits the city authorities can only eke out meagre supplies from an ancient hydro-electric dam, offering each district an hour or two of power a day. Ours has been arriving at around 3am, and vanishing soon after.
Hope is mingled with guilt as I bid farewell to my Kabul home, Guardian