海角大神

Even after a relatively peaceful first round of presidential elections in Afghanistan, the US military transition out of the turbulent country is promising to be exceedingly complex, defense analysts say.

The shooting death of three US citizens in Kabul Thursday highlights growing discontent with the US troop presence on the ground. But while lawmakers begin debate next week on just how much money to give the Pentagon for its combat operations, a war-weary American public has yet to have any sort of national discussion about whether US troops should stay or go.

鈥淲e haven鈥檛 actually debated whether we should stay in Afghanistan, and why we should stay,鈥� says Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.

In today鈥檚 era of competing demands of big-budget security concerns, 鈥淭hat鈥檚 a critical problem,鈥� Dr. Cordesman says, even as the Pentagon has sent Congress a 鈥減laceholder鈥� request of nearly $80 billion for war operations in 2015.

Pentagon planners are still working through a handful of scenarios for reducing the US military presence to between zero and 10,000 US troops by the end of the year, depending on what President Obama decides. There are currently 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan.

Some analysts warn that reducing the US forces to low levels will result in the 鈥渞apid erosion of stability鈥� in the country, since Afghan security forces will be unable to operate with so little international support. 鈥淲e can expect the return of Al Qaeda there, as it has returned to Iraq. We can expect, in other words, yet another instance of snatching failure from the jaws of success,鈥� says Frederick Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and an architect of former President George W. Bush鈥檚 鈥渟urge鈥� in Iraq.

But it is not at all clear that the Obama administration鈥檚 surge in Afghanistan 鈥� when there was a high of 100,000 US troops in the country 鈥� worked at all, Dr. Cordesman says, particularly without analysts鈥� access to key data or transparency from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).聽

Last year, for example, the US-led military coalition stopped publishing figures related to attacks by the Taliban. 鈥淜ey statistics haven鈥檛 been reported in more than a year,鈥� Cordesman adds. 鈥淲e won鈥檛 know the balance of power until the US and ISAF military are largely gone and a new government is in place.鈥�

That鈥檚 a great risk, warn some US officials. Gen. Joseph Dunford, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, told lawmakers in March that it would be difficult for a US force of fewer than 10,000 troops to defend itself. He also predicted that Afghanistan鈥檚 military capabilities would deteriorate 鈥渇airly quickly鈥� without the support of NATO troops.

This has already begun happening in some areas of the country, analysts say. In the Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, security forces currently have 鈥渘o control in an area where the Marines fought a remarkably difficult battle,鈥� Cordesman notes.聽

In spite of that military effort, Helmand has 鈥渟harply increased鈥� its narcotics production, which 鈥渕ost benefits the Taliban.鈥�

Even in the wake of the presidential election鈥檚 first round, Afghanistan 鈥渋s still essentially a country governed by power brokers and not the electoral result,鈥� he adds.

The US withdrawal of combat forces by 2014 will spur a scramble for scarce resources among these power brokers in a country that was ranked 175th worst out of 177 countries for corruption by Transparency International, Cordesman says.聽

鈥淲e all know this will be a country at war,鈥� he adds, 鈥渓ong after the end of this year.鈥�