海角大神

As the White House grapples with just how many US troops should still be in Afghanistan by the end of next year, some longtime Pentagon advisers are increasingly convinced that any 鈥減lausible鈥� deal that ends the longest war in American history will involve legalizing the Taliban.

Others say President Obama should continue to keep US force levels in the tens of thousands so that they can continue to train Afghan soldiers in the art of running an army.

More than 12 years after US troops began fighting in Afghanistan and after thousands of lives lost, it is an 鈥渋nconvenient fact鈥� that the Afghan National Security Forces will not be ready to secure their government or their territory after 2014, says Frederick Kagan, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a former member of Gen. Stanley McChrystal鈥檚 strategic assessment team back when the general, now retired, commanded US forces in Afghanistan.

US "combat operations" are slated to end by late 2014, although that doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean that any US troops left on the ground at that point will be doing any less fighting, Pentagon officials note, because they will be tasked with training, which often means fighting alongside Afghan soldiers and police.听

If the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF, as they are known in Pentagon parlance) are unable to win the war outright after 2014 鈥� a fair possibility, given that they are unable to win the war now with the help of US troops, helicopters, and intelligence assets 鈥� 鈥漷hat leaves only two plausible long-term outcomes to the conflict,鈥� says Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow in defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to now-retired Gens. David Petraeus and McChrystal in Afghanistan.

One is a 鈥渘egotiated settlement with the Taliban at some point, whether near or distant,鈥� he told lawmakers at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Middle East subcommittee last week. 鈥淭he other is defeat for the Afghan government.鈥澨�

A settlement with the Taliban 鈥渞epresents at best a least-bad option,鈥� Dr. Biddle said. 鈥淏ut a deal along these lines would nevertheless be preferable to outright defeat and, properly structured, could preserve the two core interests at the heart of the US war effort: that Afghanistan not become a base by which militants could strike the United States or our allies in the West, and that Afghanistan not become a base for destabilizing its neighbors, including Pakistan.鈥�

Today, analysts and many US lawmakers believe that the White House will opt to leave a US force of some 8,000 to 10,000 troops in the country, though the administration has warned that the 鈥渮ero option鈥� could be on the table if Afghan President Hamid Karzai does not agree to certain legal protections for US troops.

In a series of recent congressional hearings and think tank discussions, Washington continues to debate the proper number of US troops to stay in Afghanistan post-2014.

Seth Jones, a former adviser to US Special Operations Forces and an analyst at the Rand Corp. sees between 8,000 and 12,000 US forces 鈥渢hat really let Afghans do the bulk of the fighting鈥� as 鈥減robably being sufficient.鈥�

Other analysts would like to see the US keep more of its troops in the country. 鈥淚f the requirement in Afghanistan to achieve vital US national security interests is 15,000 troops but the White House is only prepared to put 12,000, is the president really prepared to put up a fight over 3,000 troops?鈥� asked听Dr. Kagan at a Foreign Policy Initiative discussion last month.

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff for the Army and now the chairman of the board for the Institute for the Study of War (a think tank run by Kagan鈥檚 wife, Kimberly Kagan), told lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that the 鈥渞esidual鈥� US force size post-2014 should be about 20,000 US troops.听

At the same hearing, Kagan听warned that 20,000 troops would be a 鈥渧ery high risk鈥� but that, 鈥渨ith a great deal of difficulty, it鈥檚 feasible.鈥澨�

He added that, on the basis of his assessments, the force size should be 鈥渦pwards of 30,000.鈥澨�

Mr. Keane came with another request: that the US continue to fund the 352,000 Afghan security forces through 2020, and not reduce the funding as many in Congress have advocated. 鈥淲e鈥檙e actually arguing over what 鈥� $2 billion or $3 billion a year for five years?鈥� Keane said. 鈥淭hat makes no sense to me whatsoever.鈥澨�

On this point, lawmakers chided Keane about the 鈥渙ffhand way鈥� he was describing the costs of the war.听

鈥淗ere in Washington these days we have debates in every one of our committees about where we spend money and how we spend money and what our priorities are, and I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 irresponsible for us to struggle through ... whether $2 billion or $3 billion a year more in Afghanistan is something that we should be spending,鈥� said Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Middle East subcommittee.

Another lawmaker asked Keane what the cost of keeping 30,000 troops a year in Afghanistan would be. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know,鈥� Keane replied.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R) of California said the estimate the committee had received from the Pentagon was about $30 billion. 听

鈥淭his isn鈥檛 a couple billion,鈥� he said.

He then posed another question. 鈥淐ould the fact that we haven鈥檛 won yet indicate that there鈥檚 something wrong more fundamentally, other than we don鈥檛 have enough troops there?鈥� he wondered aloud, before directing another question to Keane.

鈥淕eneral, you were in Vietnam,鈥� Mr. Rohrbacher began. 鈥淒o you think that we just needed to keep a couple extra troops there and the situation would have cleared itself up?鈥�

Rohrbacher did not wait for a response, but went on to note that $15 billion is the 鈥渨hole gross national product鈥� of Afghanistan.

He then proposed a less conventional end to the war. 鈥淚 assure you, with the experience that I have had in Afghanistan, which is extensive, that for $3 billion we can buy off every tribal leader and every political leader in that country,鈥� Rohrbacher said. 鈥淎nd for an extra $1 billion, there can be smiles on their faces and they can wave American flags,鈥� he added. 鈥淛ust get our troops out of there.鈥澨�

The Pentagon will bring US force levels 鈥� currently at some 54,000 鈥� down to 34,000 by February, just before Afghan presidential elections scheduled for April.听

The White House says it is still negotiating with Mr. Karzai over a bilateral security agreement to keep troops in Afghanistan past the end of 2014.