The armed foces of the United States are likely to stay in Afghanistan till 2024, according to a draft of the bilateral security agreement between the two countries.
Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has discussed the details with U.S. Ambassador in Kabul, J.D. Cunnigham and the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Marine General Joseph Dunford.
The 25-page draft of the "Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" is a sweeping document, vague in places, highly specific in others, defining everything from the types of future missions U.S. troops would be allowed to conduct in Afghanistan, to the use of radios and the taxation of American soldiers and contractors.
The deal, according to the text, would take effect on January 1, 2015 and "shall remain in force until the end of 2024, and beyond." It could be terminated by either Washington or Kabul with two years advance written notice.
The draft will be debated by the four-day traditional 'Loya jirga' beginning tommorrow in Kabul by around 2,500 village elders, tribal leaders, academics, Parliament members and officials .
While the Loya Jirga is strictly consultative, President Karzai has said he won't sign the agreement without the Jirga's approval. After the approval by the Jirga, the agreement has to be approved by parliament before it is formally signed with the United States.
The document outlines what appears to be the start of a new and open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan in the name of training and continuing to fight al-Qaeda.
More From This Section
The war in Afghanistan, the longest-ever that the U.S. has has fought, doesn't seem to be ending, but is being renewed under new and scaled-down U.S.-Afghan terms.
The draft states, "The Parties acknowledge that continued U.S. military operations to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates may be appropriate and agree to continue their close cooperation and coordination toward that end."
While the document specifically says the United States would not seek "permanent bases" in Afghanistan, the U.S. military would have "access to and use of the agreed facilities and areas."
Some of these areas would be for the "exclusive use" of U.S. troops."Afghanistan hereby authorizes United States forces to exercise all rights and authorities within the agreed facilities and areas that are necessary for their use, operation, defense, or control, including the right to undertake new construction works," the document says.
U.S. troops would be allowed to carry weapons, wear uniforms and guard the perimeter of those areas. The agreement does not say how many "exclusive use" sites there would be in Afghanistan.
The United States also would also be permitted to keep vehicles and aircraft in Afghanistan, take off and land from Afghan soil, and fly through the Afghan airspace. The facilities would be provided to the U.S. government "rent free," but significant costs would mount in other ways.
Feverish negotiations are still on to overcome the deadlock over the issue over the right of U.S. forces to conduct raids on their own. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is in constant touch with President Karzai in an effort to resove the issue.
The terms of U.S. unilateral operations, along with criminal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and the definition of foreign "aggression," are the most contentious issues.
Although the external aggression issue was put to rest last week, the uncompromising stance of the US on having jurisdiction over its troops, the unilateral operations debate remains up-in-the-air.
Previously, it was agreed between the two nations that the U.S. would ask permission before launching unilateral operations, primarily relying on Afghan forces instead.
The U.S. officials have maintained that their forces will need to have authority to search the homes of Afghans in certain cases, but President Hamid Karzai called it 'an impermissible invasion of privacy.'
In the Saturday meeting with U.S. Ambassador James Cunningham and General Joseph Dunford, Karzai refused to change his stance before the Loya Jirga on Thursday.
It seems difficult to resolve the matter before the Loya Jirga begins, but the two parties still have four days of the Jirga to clinch the issue.
Too inflexible stance of the Karzai Government over the Bilateral Security Agreement could harm Afghanistan's national interests.
Afghan political analyst Idris Rahmani says, "I think more bargaining could be damaging, because it tires the opposing side.
Bargaining wouldn't pose any harm to the U.S., but it could be really catastrophic to the future of the Afghan people."
Most of the Afghans are worried as the breakdown of talks will not affect America much if it was to sever ties. In contrast, the vulnerability of Afghanistan to internal and foreign threats is thought to make continued support from the U.S. and its NATO allies critical. They cite the examples of Iraq and Libya where civil wars are threatening to begin in the absence of U.S. forces.
On the other hand, the persistence of the United States in having the right to launch unilateral operations is likely to provide fodder for the opponents of the Bilateral Security Agreement.
The Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami, both classified as anti-government groups, have condemned the security pact and the Loya Jirga for even putting it on the table as a viable option. They have stated that consenting to a continued role of the U.S. in Afghan affairs, let alone a troop presence post-2014, would be a crime against Afghanistan.
On to the Loya Jirga now with fingers crossed.
