Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

[wig]

interesting news

The US Army’s website states that Gen Singh had helped the Indian Army to become the second largest trainer of Afghan national security forces after the US

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20131212/nation.htm#7

[SSridhar]

Karzai Arrives with Military Aid in Mind - Sandeep Dikshit, The Hindu

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai arrived here on Thursday for a four-day visit during which he will hold talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on military assistance, regional help to stabilise his country and economic opportunities for India.

On the security front, Afghanistan had requested India for lethal weapons but is equally keen on a permanent partnership in the form of a military finishing institution like the Afghan National Army officers academy, which is modelled on the U.K.’s Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

Officials here expect talks on both issues — academy and military aid — to be discussed for some time before a final decision is reached. India has issues relating to capacity, including a shortage of army officers and will, therefore, find itself stretched to meet the Afghan request for a training institution. On weapons, there is the issue of confidentiality agreement with its original suppliers and the apprehension about the equipment falling into the hands of the opposition.

In separate meetings, Mr. Karzai is expected to brief Dr. Singh and External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid about his interactions with the major players on the Afghan chessboard, including the U.S. and Pakistan.

The economic side of the visit will be on display in Pune on Saturday evening when Mr. Karzai will interact with Indian businessmen from all the three apex chambers of commerce. India has ambitious plans that will help both countries in reaching out to their extended neighbourhood while bypassing Pakistan. These include plans for a rail link beginning from an Iranian port into Afghanistan and leading up to a massive iron ore project allocated to India. Another project entails ensuring connectivity from the same Iranian port into some Central Asian countries via Afghanistan.

An official Afghan news release said Mr. Karzai’s trip to India is meant to discuss ways to enhance bilateral relations.

[vasu raya]

we could always give them guns using non-standardized ammunition which aren't readily available elsewhere be it China or Pak and this ammunition could be rationed and in case they are in wrong hands can be cut off

[SSridhar]

NightWatch For the night of 17 December 2013

Afghanistan-Iran-India: Since 8 December a strategic readjustment has taken place in South Asia, at least on the surface. Afghanistan has entered potentially significant agreements with Iran and India.

Iran. International media reported on 8 December that, "Afghanistan agreed to a long-term friendship and cooperation pact with Iran" according to President's Karzai's spokesman Aimal Faizi. "The pact will be for long-term political, security, economic and cultural cooperation as well as regional peace" President Karzai reached the deal with Iranian President Hassan Ruhani in Tehran on Sunday. At the meeting Ruhani restated Iran's strong opposition to a foreign presence in the region and its destabilizing effect. "We are concerned about tension arising out of the presence of foreign forces in the region, believing that all foreign forces should get out of the region and the task of guaranteeing Afghan security should be entrusted to the country's people"

India. Karzai made his third visit to India this year on 13 December. The visit produced several significant agreements. India will continue to train Afghan National Security Forces. India will train and mentor Afghan army and police personnel in Afghanistan, and Afghans will attend training academies in India. Several thousand Afghan military personnel attend various Indian military schools, including the military academy at Dehra Dun. India also agreed to assist in equipping the Afghan forces with non-lethal equipment, such as vehicles and kit. The agreement does not include any deployment of Indian combat troops to Afghanistan. Both countries already share intelligence information. India agreed to furnish Afghanistan with economic aid and assistance. The agreement provides an additional $500 million on top of the $1 billion India has already spent since 2002. In addition, India and Afghanistan will cooperate in the development of mining and energy production. Finally, Afghanistan and India will establish a strategic dialogue between their respective national security advisers "to provide a framework for cooperation in the area of national security"

Comment: Karzai hoped to obtain lethal military equipment from India, but India declined. Iran. Besides defense and security, Prime Minister Singh and President Karzai also agreed to work with Iran in developing new trade routes to facilitate trade and transit to Afghanistan and beyond. One of these is a land route beginning from the Iranian port of Chah Bahar. It enters Zaranj on the Afghan border from where India has built a road feeding into the Ring Road that connects major Afghan cities. A spur connects Afghanistan to Central Asia, thus opening up further prospects for India's trade and economic drive in non-traditional markets. India and Afghanistan are seeking facilities for trade representatives in Chah Bahar.

Comment: The US and Pakistan are significant by their absence. Karzai is much maligned in the US, but in one week he has strengthened alliances that might help him after US forces depart. Both India and Iran strongly oppose the Pashtun Taliban and have stood by Afghanistan before the US became involved in 2001. Karzai is looking to the game beyond the end game of US involvement. In South Asia, it is settled lore that US interest is transitory and the US always leaves. The arrangements Karzai is making are rooted in history. That history is dedicated to containing Pakistan, which has been a constant agent of instability in South Asia since World War II. Any Afghan agreement with India, which already has thousands of Border Roads Organization paramilitary personnel in Afghanistan, will aggravate Pakistani fears of having to fight a two-front war. Those fears are quite realistic. That explains recent rumors that the Pakistan Army has been restoring its ties to the Afghan Taliban, in addition to supporting the Kashmiri militants. History is resetting itself in South Asia, in anticipation of the US and NATO departure.

The Night Watch's liberal use of 'thousands' is obviously incorrect and possibly motivated. It is trying to justify Pakistani terrorism by parroting imaginary Pakistani fears based on fabricated news and its make-believe paranoia of a two-front war. I was surprised to find this analysis in Night Watch.

[ramana]

And also Pakistan has always supported the Afghan Taliban so what doep is the writer partaking?
Karzai asked for a decent protection treaty for his people which the US doesn't want to sign.
And is demandng MMS to heel and make Karzai support that treaty.

[svinayak]

False news being propagated

[abhishek_sharma]

Bunches of Guys: Owen Bennett-Jones

Book Review:

Decoding al-Qaida’s Strategy: The Deep Battle against America by Michael Ryan

The Terrorist’s Dilemma: Managing Violent Covert Organisations by Jacob Shapiro

[abhishek_sharma]

Terror: The Hidden Source

Book Review:

The Thistle and the Drone: How America’s War on Terror Became a Global War on Tribal Islam
by Akbar Ahmed

[ramana]

Terror: The Hidden Source

Book Review:

The Thistle and the Drone: How America’s War on Terror Became a Global War on Tribal Islam
by Akbar Ahmed

Wah Ahmed saab! you forget that Tribal Islam is powered by djinns in Isloo and take us all for ullos?

[abhishek_sharma]

Former Warlord Preps for Western Withdrawal

[SSridhar]

US Gains in Afghanistan will see significan rollbacks by 2017

WASHINGTON: A new US intelligence estimate predicts that gains the United States and allies have made in the Afghanistan war in the past three years will be significantly rolled back by 2017, even if some US troops remain, the Washington Post reported on Saturday, citing officials familiar with the report.

The National Intelligence Estimate also predicts that Afghanistan will quickly fall into chaos if Washington and Kabul fail to sign a security pact to keep an international military contingent there beyond 2014 {That's incorrect. Afghanistan will become anarchic even if a US presence is there} , the newspaper said. The pact must be signed for the United States and its allies to provide billions more dollars in aid to the impoverished country.

The newspaper cited officials who have read the classified report, which includes input from the 16 US intelligence agencies, or were briefed on its conclusions.

"In the absence of a continuing presence and continuing financial support," the intelligence assessment "suggests the situation would deteriorate very rapidly," the newspaper quoted one US official familiar with the report as saying.

However, the newspaper said some officials felt the report on the potential outcome of the longest war in US history was overly pessimistic and did not take into account progress made by Afghanistan's security forces.

"I think what we're going to see is a recalibration of political power, territory and that kind of thing," the paper quoted one official as saying. "It's not going to be an inevitable rise of the Taliban."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has balked at signing the security pact that would permit US forces to stay in the country beyond 2014, and US officials have said that unless a deal is reached to keep perhaps 8,000 US troops, the Taliban insurgents might stage a major comeback and al-Qaida could regain safe havens.

[Prem]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mon ... ghanistan/
How hard is it to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan? Very hard.

The arrival of 2014 promises to open the flood gates of prognostication about Afghanistan’s future as the long-planned withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces nears completion. Much stock has been placed in discerning Afghan attitudes toward their government and the Taliban as clues for anticipating future events. And with good reason. Counterinsurgency theorists (well, most of them) have argued that winning “hearts and minds” is a key, if not the key, to victory — or at least what passes for victory in these settings.Now, new research shows that just how hard winning hearts and minds can be. Afghans who experience violence at the hands of NATO forces become less supportive of these forces and more supportive of the Taliban. But Afghans who experience violence at the hands of the Taliban don’t react nearly as strongly against the Taliban.An important question — how can we measure “hearts and minds” accurately? — is often lost in the revolving shuffle of PowerPoint decks and endless debates about metrics. Clearly the obstacles are formidable. Dumping billions of dollars into a country is likely to skew attitudes, if only because it generates incentives for recipients to shade their answers in ways that guarantee future assistance. The shadow of violence also looms over respondents and enumerators alike: Speaking honestly, or simply entering a village to solicit opinions, can be risky endeavors.

In 2010-11, Graeme Blair, Kosuke Imai, and I measured Afghan attitudes toward NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Taliban using an indirect survey method called an “endorsement experiment” designed to minimize these issues. We surveyed nearly 3,000 Afghan males in 204 villages in five predominantly Pashtun provinces. We posed a series of questions about an individual’s exposure to violence by both the ISAF and the Taliban. We used a battery of four indirect questions to measure support for the ISAF and Taliban (for the nuts and bolts, please see our article).

What happened to support for ISAF once an individual (or his family) was harmed by ISAF? Did the same hold true for the Taliban, or did Taliban violence mean something different to its victims? Put simply, the effect of combatant violence on civilian attitudes is highly asymmetric.Harm by ISAF, as outlined in the figure below, is associated with a sharp decrease in support for ISAF (column 1, left side) and a marked increase in support for the Taliban (column 2, left side). Harm by the Taliban, however, is associated with almost no transfer of support to ISAF (column 1, right side) and has only a very modest negative effect on support for the Taliban (column 2, right side).

[ramana]

Simple. ISAF is seen as a foreign force while Taliban is seen as a local force. One doesn't need a PhD to understand that.
Hnece India seeks to empower the ANF.

[Prem]

Simple. ISAF is seen as a foreign force while Taliban is seen as a local force. One doesn't need a PhD to understand that.Hnece India seeks to empower the ANF.

ISAF should have bought and distributed more Bollywood movies, bring in the Bollywood actors there , build schools and hospitals . They could have developed the whole country with 10% of the money spend on war and gotton firm allied friendly country . You cant buy proud Afghan with Candy.

[Virendra]

A news video of Shaheed Hemraj's head being paraded in Pakistani village, is doing rounds on India TV.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indi ... post838630

[ramana]

Newsweek Jan 10th, 2014 issue covers story is about how US has abandoned Afghanistan to drug lords.

So Gates is right.
Its cut and run under Ombaba

[SSridhar]

Its cut and run under Ombaba

Not only under Obama, but every US president is notorious for this after initiating an action and running away half-done. They leave festering wounds all over the world.

[Philip]

The result of US/Western "peace" in our region,and this is the path our "fellow traveller " Snake-oil Surrender Singh has been leading us..to the promised land of a*se licking the US of A!

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 53627.html

After 12 years, £390bn, and countless dead, we leave poverty, fraud – and the Taliban in Afghanistan
World View: The country is in such a bad way as western troops depart that leaders can only spin, almost to the point of lying

A few years ago in Kabul, I was listening to a spokesman for an Afghan government organisation who was giving me a long, upbeat and not very convincing account of the achievements of the institution for which he worked. To relieve the tedium, and without much expectation of getting an interesting reply, I asked him – with a guarantee of non-attribution – what benefits the Afghan government had brought to its people. Without hesitation the spokesman replied that these benefits were likely to be very limited "so long as our country is run by gangsters and warlords".

It was at about this time that I decided that the main problem in Afghanistan was not the strength of the Taliban but the weakness of the government. It does not matter how many Nato troops are in the country because they are there in support of a government detested by much of the population. Everywhere I went in the capital there were signs of this, even among prosperous people who might be expected to be natural supporters of the status quo. I interviewed an estate agent who should not have had much to complain about since, in the 10 years after the fall of the Taliban in 2001, Kabul was the world's fastest growing city. He pointed to some workmen outside his office window saying they earned between $5 and $6 a day in a city where to rent a decent house for their families would cost $1,000 a month. He said: "It is impossible for this situation to continue without a revolution."

The year 2014 has long been billed as a decisive year for Afghanistan because most of the remaining foreign troops, 38,000 US and 5,200 British, will pull out before the end of it. Predictions of an exact date for a historic turning point usually turn out to be mistaken, but in this case conventional wisdom may well be correct. Already there are signs of drastic political change, such as the Afghan government's announcement last week of its intention to release 72 hard-core Taliban prisoners, provoking furious protests from Washington. Probably Prime Minister Hamid Karzai's motive is to conciliate local leaders who want their relatives out of jail and whose support Karzai needs in the presidential election in April, in which he cannot run, having served two terms, although he wants to determine his successor.

An important feature of this withdrawal of US and British troops is how little interest it is sparking in their home countries, although 2,806 US and 447 British soldiers have been killed since 2001. The total cost to the US of war, reconstruction and aid over the same period is $641.7bn (£390bn) according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Of course, money spent on Afghanistan does not mean money spent in Afghanistan, but even taking this into account it is extraordinary that, despite gargantuan sums spent, Afghan government figures reveal that 60 per cent of children are malnourished and only 27 per cent of Afghans have access to safe drinking water. Many survive only through remittances from relatives working abroad or through the drug business, which is worth some 15 per cent of the Afghan gross national product.

The figures above come from a damning study of the outcome of 12 years of international intervention in Afghanistan by Thomas Ruttig of the Afghanistan Analysts Network in Kabul. His succinct, authoritative account of where Afghanistan stands today underscores the fact that US and British military intervention has ended in near total failure. The Taliban has not been crushed, operates in all parts of the country and, in provinces like Helmand, is poised to take over as US and British troops depart. Even with the backing of foreign troops, Afghan government control often ends a couple of kilometres outside the district capital. The extra 30,000 US troops sent as part of the surge in US troop numbers in 2010-11, which brought their total to 101,000 at peak deployment, have had little long-term impact.

The whole Afghan fiasco is too often debated in terms of military tactics, while the most important reasons for US and British failure are political and go back to the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Four points need to be made about that seminal era: the Taliban were not popular among any but a small minority of Afghans at that time, but their military defeat was less decisive than it appeared in western media because they had largely withdrawn or dispersed. I followed them on the main road from Kabul to Ghazni and finally to Kandahar and there was little fighting. Under the right political circumstances, they could always re-emerge. Equally important, the 1,500-mile Afghan-Pakistan border remained open so the Taliban had safe havens in which to rest, train and resupply.

That they did re-emerge so swiftly and powerfully after 2006 was the result of a fourth factor, namely the toxic nature of the new regime that emerged in Kabul. It was made up of the same jihadi warlords and commanders whose corruption and violence had provoked the Taliban takeover, backed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, in 1996. They dominated parliament, the judiciary and the security services.

"Those who received financial means from the US in 2001 to fight the Taliban often invested in the drugs trade," writes Thomas Ruttig, "and starting from there, gradually took over licit sectors of the economy, such as the import-export business, construction, and the real estate, banking and mining sectors." They gorged themselves on foreign aid, so by 2013 Afghanistan ranked bottom of the 177 countries (equal with Somalia and North Korea) in Transparency International's league table of perception of corruption by businessmen.

The new post-Taliban Afghan elite was characterised by a lethal blend of warlordism and jihadi Islam. A journalist called Mir Hossein Musawi coined the term "holy fascism" to describe the mixture of the two in a newspaper article in Kabul in 2003. He was promptly forced to flee the country accused of insulting Islam.

Elections are now so fraudulent as to rob the winners of legitimacy. The April 2014 election is likely to be worse than anything seen before, with 20.7 million voter cards distributed in a country where half the population of 27 million are under the voting age of 18. Independent election monitoring institutions have been taken over by and are now under the thumb of the government.

Faced with these multiple disasters western leaders simply ignore Afghan reality and take refuge in spin that is not far from deliberate lying. During a visit to Helmand province last December David Cameron claimed that a basic level of security had been established, so British troops could justly claim that their mission had been accomplished.

Nobody in Afghanistan believes this. But the departure of foreign troops does not necessarily mean the triumph of the Taliban who are a Pashtun movement and will have great difficulty establishing themselves in areas dominated by other ethnicities such as the Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks. Many Afghans fear a worse fate, and believe that 2014 will see the start of a return to the era of savage and anarchic cruelty in the 1990s, when jihadi war-bands ruled Afghanistan.
React Now

[SSridhar]

After 12 years, £390bn, and countless dead, we leave poverty, fraud – and the Taliban in Afghanistan

World View: The country is in such a bad way as western troops depart that leaders can only spin, almost to the point of lying

Why are we surprised ? The 1979-1989 Sunni wahhabi jihad led by the US was not to save Afghanistan or establish democracy there; it was to avenge its own Vietnam defeat. The moment it was achieved, the US left the scene.

The GWoT was neither global nor a broad-spectrum 'war on terror'. It was just to get rid of OBL and once that was achieved in 2011, the US wound down and is leaving, once again leaving Afghanistan and indeed the region to sort out the mess. The US was able to hijack the UN to follow its diktats in GWoT.

In Iraq too, which country it attacked un-necessarily and murdered its president, it has left leaving it in total disarray.

[pankajs]

Livemint ‏@livemint 1h

India rejects ‘exit’ strategy for Afghanistan http://mintne.ws/1cuT4O2
--------------------------------------->>

Rejecting an “exit strategy” for Afghanistan, India on Thursday pitched for “closest international support” to prevent decade-long achievements from going “waste” in the war-torn country, where the US plans a total pull-out by this year end in absence of bilateral security agreement (BSA).
Addressing the meeting of the International Contact Group (ICG) on Afghanistan-Pakistan, attended by representatives from 53 countries, external affairs minister Salman Khurshid said Afghanistan was at a critical juncture and required steadfast support from the international community.
Reiterating India’s support for peace and security in Afghanistan, he said what faces that country was “not anymore intrinsic tribal differences” of ethnic divisions but it was “clearly terrorism and continuability of some armed opposition groups to launch attacks on innocent civilians and legitimate Afghan government”.

[SSridhar]

India, Russia and China Hold Talks on Afghanistan - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

India, China and Russia on Thursday held trilateral consultations to coordinate their views on the situation in Afghanistan, amid heightened regional diplomacy in the lead-up to the withdrawal of NATO forces.

Deputy National Security Adviser Nehchal Sandhu met with Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministry officials here [Beijing] on Thursday, following informal talks on Wednesday.

Officials said the three countries exchanged views on the situation in the country and agreed that “security in Afghanistan is important to the country and the region.” They also reiterated their support “for a strong, united, stable, peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan” and agreed to hold further talks.

The three countries held similar consultations on the issue last year when they met in Moscow for trilateral talks.

China also initiated a similar three-way consultation mechanism, involving Russia and Pakistan, highlighting Beijing attempt at a careful balancing act — and the sensitive regional dynamics — in the face of often competing interests of India and Pakistan.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei told reporters China was “ready to work together with all relevant parties to take part in the peaceful reconstruction and reconciliation in Afghanistan, so as to jointly maintain peace and stability.”

“We hold the meeting with relevant parties,” he said, “with the purpose of jointly maintaining regional peace and stability.”

[vishvak]

Suicide attack in Kabul by Taliban, those murdered include UN representatives.
link

[Philip]

This will accelerate the date of the "beating the retreat" ceremony of the western forces, who might even run the ceremony at higher speed! Tough days ahead for Karzai and co. Unless the former N.Alliance get into the act,he is likely to end up as a dog's dinner or buzkashi ball!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/j ... ide-attack
UN and IMF officials among 21 killed in Kabul suicide attack
British politician and bodyguard are also victims of bombing and shooting at restaurant in Afghan capital

A suicide squad attack in the heart of Kabul's fortified diplomatic quarter has killed 21 people, among them an aspiring Labour politician, the mission head of the International Monetary Fund and a top UN official with years of experience in Afghanistan.

The carnage began on Friday night when a suicide bomber blew himself up at the door of Taverna du Liban and ended a couple of hours later with almost everyone who had been inside the popular restaurant dead: 13 of them were foreigners and eight were Afghans.

The roll call of the international victims, from the US, UK, Denmark, Lebanon, Malaysia, Canada and Russia, was testimony to the diversity of the foreign civilians working in Afghanistan. There were no soldiers in the restaurant.

The brutality of the attack and the choice of a soft civilian target are likely to alter the way expats, from aid workers to finance specialists, operate in Kabul. They have been relatively insulated from the insurgency, which has focused mostly on diplomatic or military installations in the past.

British prospective MEP Dharmender Singh, known as Del, was one of those killed in the attack. Born and raised in Southampton, he was a development consultant with years of experience working in countries including Sudan, Kosovo, Libya and Afghanistan.

Labour leader Ed Miliband said he was "appalled and shocked by this barbarous act of terror" and paid tribute to Singh. He said: "My thoughts – and the thoughts of the whole Labour party – are with the family and friends of Del Singh who was killed in yesterday's tragic suicide bomb in Kabul. He dedicated his life to working with people across the world who needed his support."

The other Briton was named as Simon Chase, originally from Chester, but who had been living in Northern Ireland with a partner and child. He is thought to have been working in Kabul as a bodyguard, according to his home town newspaper.

The gunmen reportedly went around the restaurant shooting patrons as they cowered under tables. The two Lebanese dead were the country director for the International Monetary Fund, Wabel Abdallah, and his friend, the restaurant's owner Kamal Hamade.

Both men had been in Afghanistan for many years; Abdallah had helped the government and donors untangle the $900m Kabul Bank scandal that embroiled much of the political elite.

Hamade was loved by foreigners and Afghans for his quiet generosity; meals always ended with free chocolate cakes ,and orders were usually expanded with several free dishes.

Also among the dead was Russian Vadim Nazarov, one of three UN staff killed. He first went to Afghanistan in the 1980s during its war with the Soviet Union and had an encyclopedic knowledge of the country and its rival factions. In his UN role he had reportedly been trying to broker peace talks with the insurgent groups that killed him.

The American University of Afghanistan, an elite English-language organisation with many foreign employees, said two of its staff had been killed, but did not release names. It promised to review security but said academic activities would continue.

Michael Smith, the university's president, said: "Such senseless violence flies in the face of the sentiments of our students and the Afghan people who share our grief."

A spokesperson for the US State Department said: "Among those murdered in this shameful act were Wabel Abdallah, the IMF's Resident Representative, personnel from the United Nations, and civilians from around the world, including US citizens, who had come to help build a peaceful, prosperous future for Afghanistan and its people. Several Afghan citizens were also tragically killed.

"With this despicable, targeted attack on innocent civilians, terrorists continue to demonstrate blatant disregard for life and for the peaceful, prosperous future Afghans want and are working so hard to achieve."

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack while the gunmen were still battling government forces, and on Saturday said that the killings were revenge for the deaths of Afghan civilians in a Nato airstrike in a province near Kabul several days ago.

But the attack devastated foreign as well as Afghan families, who on Saturday buried their dead in accordance with Islamic tradition. They included a young couple who had been married less than a year and Mohammad Ali, an employee of a telecoms firm.

His family spent the previous evening waiting in horror at the edge of the police cordon, hoping for a miraculous escape. "My son, my son, they killed my son," his mother wailed at home on Saturday, almost senseless with grief. "He had just bought a house for himself."

There appeared to have been just one survivor, a cook who had fled to the roof after the initial suicide blast, which damaged cars and shattered windows along the street. He had hid behind a chimney for several hours until rescued by police.

The bomber bypassed the light security of a steel front door to blow away a side wall, allowing gunmen to rush into the restaurant kitchen, suggesting the attackers were familiar with the restaurant's layout. Afghan media reported that the district police chief had been removed from his job and was under investigation.

[Joseph]

India, Russia and China Hold Talks on Afghanistan - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

India, China and Russia on Thursday held trilateral consultations to coordinate their views on the situation in Afghanistan, amid heightened regional diplomacy in the lead-up to the withdrawal of NATO forces.

Deputy National Security Adviser Nehchal Sandhu met with Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministry officials here [Beijing] on Thursday, following informal talks on Wednesday.

Officials said the three countries exchanged views on the situation in the country and agreed that “security in Afghanistan is important to the country and the region.” They also reiterated their support “for a strong, united, stable, peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan” and agreed to hold further talks.

The three countries held similar consultations on the issue last year when they met in Moscow for trilateral talks.

China also initiated a similar three-way consultation mechanism, involving Russia and Pakistan, highlighting Beijing attempt at a careful balancing act — and the sensitive regional dynamics — in the face of often competing interests of India and Pakistan.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei told reporters China was “ready to work together with all relevant parties to take part in the peaceful reconstruction and reconciliation in Afghanistan, so as to jointly maintain peace and stability.”

“We hold the meeting with relevant parties,” he said, “with the purpose of jointly maintaining regional peace and stability.”

SSridhar ji,

Does China have a preference between Pakistan and India on which should have more influence in Afghanistan?

Indian influence would bring more competition for China in major business projects, but it helps in making Afghanistan a place to actually do business in.

Pakistani influence would mean very little competition for China on major business projects, but what the Taliban and PA are doing in Afghanistan isn't as positive for major business projects.

[RoyG]

Taliban wont touch what pakistan declares off limits...

[ramana]

That attack in Kabul by the suicide squad is it a new tactic? One blows hmself up and the rest shoot the others.

[SSridhar]

That attack in Kabul by the suicide squad is it a new tactic? One blows hmself up and the rest shoot the others.

No, it has happened before many times. For example, the attacks on the Indian embassy used a similar tactic. Same was the case in Sarposa prison attack. Even the Panjabi Taliban have used this tactic several times.

[SSridhar]

Does China have a preference between Pakistan and India on which should have more influence in Afghanistan?

Indian influence would bring more competition for China in major business projects, but it helps in making Afghanistan a place to actually do business in.

Pakistani influence would mean very little competition for China on major business projects, but what the Taliban and PA are doing in Afghanistan isn't as positive for major business projects.

Joseph, I would guess that China would certainly prefer a Pakistani influence. It would certainly not prefer an Indian influence because as you rightly said it would be competition. More than that, geostrategically and geopolitically, an expansion of Indian sphere of influence would not be to the liking of China at all. Besides, that would prvide access to CAR countries for India which is today very limited. India is trying to lay a 70 km railway line between Iran and Turkmenistan to overcome the last mile problem in using Chahbahar port for access to CAR and China would not like a second access through Afghanistan. OTOH, the Pakistani influence would be benign and beneficial. It would need Pakistani help also for reasons of logistics. The Wakhan corridor is too narrow and not well developed as well. The upcoming expansion of the Karakoram Highway and railway lines would be useful, in China's calculation. Also, China knows that Pakistan would never like Indian influence in Afghanistan and it cannot go against that for obvious reasons.

China's investments in Afghanistan would be to swindle that country clean of its mineral resources for China's own use. It would look to Afghanistan as a supplier of raw material. It may not even be able to export much to that country. certainly, it would not invest billions of dollars for development of that country or on humanitarian basis as India has done and has been doing for decades. The historical connections with India are on a different footing for Afghanistan than with China. The copper mines that China has been developing there are leading to destruction of ancient monuments but China doesn't care. It has always exhibited utter callousness in exploiting resources of other countries for its own benefits, as it happened in Myanmar as well where the Myitsone dam had to be stopped because of local resentment. One can be sure that India would have been very careful in these cases because Indian history is entwined with these countries.

[Prem]

http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-13504 ... fghan-stay

WASHINGTON: U.S. military leaders have presented the White House with a plan that would keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, but then start drawing the force down to nearly zero by the end of President Barack Obama's term, according to senior officials. Military leaders told Mr. Obama that if he rejects the 10,000-troop option, then it would be best to withdraw nearly all military personnel at the end of this year because a smaller troop presence wouldn't offer adequate protection to U.S. personnel, said officials involved in the discussions, according to a report published in Wall Street Journal.The Obama administration has said it wants an enduring presence in Afghanistan to support the Afghan army and to prevent any regrouping of Islamist militants that could once again threaten the U.S. from the country, officials said. The debate over troop levels in Afghanistan has taken on new urgency in light of a resurgence of al Qaeda in Iraq following the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country in 2011.The Pentagon's approach, discussed in White House National Security Council meetings last week, encountered pointed questions from some NSC officials who asked what difference 10,000 U.S. troops would make on such a temporary basis, U.S. officials said.

Vice President Joe Biden has been a leading skeptic within the administration about keeping troops in Afghanistan to train and advise Afghan forces after 2014, officials said.Mr. Biden has advocated deploying special operations forces to Afghanistan for counterterrorism missions, officials said.Afghan officials in Washington didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on the new Pentagon proposal.As an important boost to the request, the 10,000-troop proposal has the backing of intelligence agencies and the State Department. They have told the White House that their activities on the ground inside Afghanistan will depend on whether the Pentagon gets the troops it says it needs to secure bases where military advisers, spies and diplomats would do their work.Senior U.S. officials called it a "binary" proposal, meaning the Pentagon wants one troop level or the other, not a midpoint that they said will be too small to protect deployments and support the goals of the mission.
Defense and intelligence officials who disagree with Mr. Biden's approach said any future special operations force in Afghanistan would be of limited utility without a robust intelligence network to track militants and guide "kill teams" to their targets."To have an intelligence network, you have to have a footprint, and to have a footprint, you have to have force protection," said one senior U.S. official involved in the discussions.Currently, there are about 37,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and another 19,000 international forces. The U.S. is scheduled to draw down to 32,000 forces by the end of February. The latest military proposal presents the Obama administration with a stark choice. White House NSC spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said Mr. Obama hasn't made decisions about final troop numbers and declined to discuss the details of ongoing deliberations.Top national security advisers to the president say they have been frustrated by Mr. Karzai's unwillingness to sign the bilateral security agreement. In recent months, the Afghan leader has added several new conditions to the accord, which U.S. officials have said they thought was completed."If we cannot conclude a Bilateral Security Agreement promptly, then we will initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no U.S. or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan," Ms. Hayden said. "That is not a future we are seeking, and we do not believe that it is in Afghanistan's interests."

[SSridhar]

^ Good. My prediction had always been that all this posturing of a remnant US force in Afghanistan was a drama and there would be none.

[pankajs]

Afghanistan cracks down on advertising in favor of U.S. troops

(Reuters) - Afghanistan's government, increasingly at odds with Washington, is cracking down on advertisements that promote keeping U.S. troops in the country after 2014 and has already shut down a spot aired by the country's most widely watched broadcasters.

The commercials - some funded by a U.S. organization - have drawn official criticism because they urge President Hamid Karzai to abandon his refusal to sign a security pact with the United States that would enable the troops to stay.

Broadcasters, which ran the spots for several weeks, came under investigation on grounds that their source of funding was unclear. All have pulled the advertisements off the air.

"We have launched an investigation into broadcasters to find out where they receive money from for such advertisements," Basir Azizi, a spokesman for the attorney general, told Reuters on Wednesday.

Despite Karzai's refusal to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) unless several conditions were met, many Afghans are uncertain the army is able to fend off Taliban insurgents without help from the NATO-led ISAF coalition of troops.

The commercials often include interviews with rank-and-file Afghans calling on Karzai to sign the accord immediately.

In one spot, the head of a cultural association tells the president: "You should accept the people's demand and sign this as soon as possible."

The crackdown is the latest symptom of Karzai's hostility to Washington. Last week, he cited a deadly attack on a restaurant to accuse the United States of doing too little to fight terrorism.

Afghanistan's media watchdog said pressure on broadcasters was hurting attempts to establish the industry's independence.

"Such actions by the government are a clear attempt to limit freedom of speech and put at risk advances in the media industry," Mujib Khelwatgar, Director General of NAI media watchdog, told Reuters.{Establishing industry's independence my foot! It was an attempt to establish the industry's dependence of foreign fund specifically US funds}

Government figures show that more than 50 private television stations, 150 radio broadcasters and about 1,000 newspapers have sprung up since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001.

Broadcasters were aware the spots were funded by ISAF or related groups, but saw "public service" advertising as a source of revenue.

Afghanistan's most popular channel, Tolo TV, said the spots were provided by a company called Ads Village, whose officials acknowledge the funds came from ISAF or U.S. state aid agency USAID.

"All adverts are treated with similar terms and conditions, whether it is on BSA or a brand of mineral water," Massood Sanjar, Tolo TV's channel manager, told Reuters.

The station, he said, was paid $700-$1,000 a minute to air the spots several times over a 24 hour period.

The ISAF declined to indicate how much it spends on advertising, saying: "Public information released... is intended to inform and educate the public on the mission and operations of ISAF and our Afghan National Security Forces partners."

[rajanb]

Looks like we are never going to see Afghanistan, somewhat even close, return to the days of the famous Kabuliwala!

It is going to be civil war and mayhem once again. But will it be another Vietnam for the retreating ISAF forces? The CIA, taught the then jihadis, to harass the withdrawing Soviets. Will those lessons also be applied to ISAF?

After what they have done in Iraq, I would not shed a tear. But the poor ISAF soldier has been at the mercy of his political masters in Washington and London. Not to mention the aam aadmi of Afghanistan.

I hope the GOI is taking adequate steps to protect our people there, because I think that 2014 is going to be a watershed year.

[ramana]

The US keeps saying Karzai refusal to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement(BSA) is the sticking point. Why would he not sign it if its was really for bi-lateral security? Its an agreement to allow US troops free rein inside Afghanistan to do what they want: support good or bad Taliban to promote TSP interests in Afghanistan and enable free trafficking.

[rajanb]

The US keeps saying Karzai refusal to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement(BSA) is the sticking point. Why would he not sign it if its was really for bi-lateral security? Its an agreement to allow US troops free rein inside Afghanistan to do what they want: support good or bad Taliban to promote TSP interests in Afghanistan and enable free trafficking.

And guess what?

U.S. proposes 10,000-strong force, or none at all


(rec'd via email from Foreign Policy Daily Briefing)

Multiple media outlets reported on Tuesday that the Pentagon has proposed to President Obama that either 10,000 American troops remain in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission ends in December or none at all (NYT, Pajhwok, TOLO News). The figure is the midpoint of a range of 8,000 to 12,000 troops that has been debated for months, with officials saying that anything less than that would be too few to protect the reduced contingent of diplomats and military and intelligence officials that would remain in the country. According to the reports, the U.S. State Department and all of the country's intelligence agencies support the plan, though it has met resistance from senior officials on the National Security Council, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who question why there are no in-between options for them to consider.
Guess what Joey boy. Your support for your own troops has been lacking, to the point of considering body bags returning to you, as equal equal to the innocent Afghans considered as "collateral damage." Not to mention the asinine covert support to the Quetta and Haqqani gangs. tis time the US Generals stood up to O'Bombers stupidity!


Regardless of what troop number is ultimately decided upon, however, the Wall Street Journal cited senior government officials who said that all troops would be withdrawn by the end of Obama's second term in 2017, a report that could not be confirmed by other news outlets (WSJ). There are currently more than 37,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

[ramana]

Another view from Asia Times:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia ... 10114.html

SPEAKING FREELY
Karzai keeps US on tenterhooks

By Bipin Shah


It is becoming increasingly urgent for the US to seal a deal with Afghan President Hamid Karzai over US troops remaining on Afghan soil, particularly since US President Barack Obama must also be seen to be fulfilling his promise to the American people that the withdrawal will happen before his second term expires.

Karzai has the power to sign the deal, but he has used one excuse after another to delay doing so. Karzai's fears do not derive from the implications of residual international forces staying, in fact he needs this. Rather, the issues behind this delay are geopolitical and concern possible fall outs with neighboring countries.

The last thing Karzai needs is another proxy war between a Pakistan-sponsored Taliban and a Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance supported by Russia, India and Iran.

Americans are driven by self-interest, yet they have a knack of getting involved in conflicts without planning a clear exist strategy. Defense and other commercial interests take over once the fighting starts, and the logic and purpose of the initiation is often lost with devastating consequences to themselves and the world.

The hardliners and media spinners of the United States Congress then take the reins to whip up failures and quickly assign responsibility as a potential issue in the election cycle. This gives hardly enough time for generals to do the required job. You can think about the number of examples, such as Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Libya and now Syria, where that is the case.

Epicenter of terrorism

The US, being unable to root out the epicenter of terrorism in Pakistan and Middle East due to heavy economic reliance on Saudi oil and transit facilities from Pakistan, finds itself in a "no win" situation.

Since most of al-Qaeda has moved on to the Middle East, declaring a victory and getting out is the only option left for the Obama administration in Afghanistan. Robert Gates, a former and loyal defense secretary in the Bush and Obama administrations, has clearly pointed out the disadvantages of advertising the "pull out decision" in advance.

The enemies did not have to do anything but simply wait it out. Neighboring countries are watching these events in horror and preparing for another round of war in Afghanistan. This is a prime example of going into the region to stabilize the country and yet leaving it more destabilized.

Karzai and Central Asian neighbors

Hamid Karzai lived with this nightmare and saw how impotent Americans were in dealing with Pakistan and the Taliban, so why put all your eggs in one basket? He sees the endgame like some of his neighbors do, with Kabul "left holding the empty bag".

President Atambayev of Kyrgyzstan announced last month that a US $1 billion Kyrgyz-Russian arms deal is ready to be signed and implemented. The cargo contains artillery pieces, tanks, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and other military equipment.

Atambayev was quoted on December 16 as saying that this was a possible reason for a "foreign army attack" on Kyrgyzstan. Most astute observers believes that this is linked to the final status of Afghanistan and the US's desire to sell the left-over equipment to Central Asian countries at bargain basement price to maintain some leverage there.

From a practical stand point, Pakistan is anxious to allow the Taliban to do their dirty work and destroy as much as they can of the equipment.

US-India ties

After gaining the Loya-Jirga's approval, Secretary of State John Kerry wanted to sign the deal with Karzai; however, Karzai had different ideas. He seems to trust Indian judgment better, so he dashed to New Delhi.

India has watched nervously Obama's hasty declaration that it would get out of Afghanistan by 2014. This is quite the contrary to repeated US pledges made to India on the subcontinent's stability.

Under pressure from the US-Israel Lobby, India had bent to American wishes by curtaining oil imports from Iran. For India, it is a closer and secured supply. India has civil relationship with Iran and shares the same security concerns against Wahhabi Islam. Sunni Wahhabis are as much as a threat to India as to Iran.

Karzai's clever mind

In spite of Karzai's zigzagging and erratic statements, he has a clever mind and is trying to shop around for the deal possible for Afghans. Karzai's expectations are not only personal but also for his country.

The uppermost thing occupying his Pashtun mind is how to redeem his Pashto nationality? Afghanistan has been used as a geopolitical theater for over 30 years by big powers.

Pakistan has used Afghanistan as its colony by training and parking the world's deadliest terrorists there. Karzai has so far refused to play an American serenade. He has consulted Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese and Iranians to take a measured geopolitical reading. He has become a kind of a shopper looking for the best deal possible.

Afghanistan was a poor country when it separated from the British. The victim of his own geography, it remains a land-locked country with enormous natural resources without access to trade routes and sea ports.

Afghanistan provides a critical passageway to oil rich Central Asia that everyone covets. Iran and India are two that comes to the mind.

Afghanistan for its own reasons does not want a permanent US presence as a part of its "Asian pivot". India prefers US's presence to prevent terrorism emanating from Afghanistan's soil with Pakistani support as well as check mate China making inroads into subcontinent. There is ambivalence there on all sides. US-China trade is robust in spite of their differences. India's trade with China will equal the US's very soon at nearly $100 billion.

Pakistan has successfully deflected US by ignoring all its demarches and the fact that the US is still heavily dependent on Pakistan's transits facility for a safe passage makes things harder.

For the time being, it is compelled to oblige Pakistan. Tomorrow is a different day. Pakistan has no interest in stabilizing Afghanistan as it regards the country as a bulwark against India. Despite various promises to the US to bring the client Taliban to the table to forge a peace deal between Karzai and the Taliban, the US had not seen any concrete results from Pakistan. Previous attempts were repeatedly sabotaged by the assassination of peace envoys, attacks on US forces, the blowing up the Indian embassy and temporarily halting the supply line to US forces.

Barack Obama, by pre-announcing the withdrawal date for domestic reason, removed the incentive for enemies to negotiate. This also demonstrates to countries like India, Afghanistan and others that the US is not dependable ally and its guarantees have expiration dates attached. Pakistan continuously reminds his erstwhile ally the US that support in getting concessions from Indians on Kashmir is needed as a "quid pro quo" before Taliban and ISI-run terrorist training camps and charities are shut down.

This phobia of parity with India drives the Pakistani mentality. After losing three wars, there is nothing left in the tool box except subversion and infiltration. The nuclear war sometimes mentioned by hard-nuts is unthinkable and the world will not allow that. If Pakistan wants to compete with India it should do so in the economic sphere. However, such normalization is a long way off.

Pakistan-India-Afghanistan

In addition to that, there is a huge trust deficit between all parties in the region. Most ordinary Afghans believe that the US and Pakistan are jointly responsible for ruining their country during and after the Cold War. India wants a step-by-step approach with Pakistan as Pakistan has repeatedly signed agreements after losing wars and then reneged on them. Former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf tactically agreed to that approach with India but never implemented the final solution to Kashmir.

The most-favored nation status granted to India still remains unimplemented by Pakistan. After three wars and abandonment of the Simla agreement, India has no desire to believe in Pakistani sincerity without some valid proof.

Pakistan has violated ceasefires and mounted terrorist attacks on Indian soil at home and abroad repeatedly. None of these people were brought to the justice after pledging their cooperation.

US-India ties have not made much more concrete progress either, after few military deals and lifting of nuclear embargo that India always felt was the US's obligation and responsibility.

Indians have a reason to get upset with inconsistencies in American foreign policies. When Americans arrested a New York-based junior Indian diplomat on questionable grounds, they conveniently forgot to inform the Indian Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh, who happened to be in Washington at Foggy Bottom headquarter for scheduled consultations.

Sujatha Singh during her visit was pressed to exert India's influence on Karzai, to "fall in line". Sujatha rightfully declined on the grounds that Afghanistan is a sovereign nation. The intended visit was to brief Sujatha Singh on recent incident of the ceasefire violation by Pakistan and to make an urgent request to accelerate the normalization process. India reminded Americans again that while they are following a step-by-step agreement between the two countries, trade liberalization has not taken place and ceasefire violations have increased.

In addition to that imbroglio, Pakistan has made no progress to bring criminals to Justice for the 26/11 attack in Mumbai in 2008. The India side also complained about stalling techniques and denial of access to the American triple agent David Headley. After all, "Trust but verify" is an old adage of Ronald Reagan, the former American president.

With 2014 election approaching in India, nothing concrete can result and this is the same reason that was probably given to India by Pakistan when it was granted the most-favored nation status by Asif Ali Zardari. None of these nations had anything to do with what may follow from Obama's self-declared "pull out date".

Karzai is in no rush to sign any deal. Karzai, after getting the expected approval from a Loya Jirga, embarked on a world tour to feel out regional allies. He visited Islamabad, Delhi and Tehran and held talks. This sounds all-too familiar to the tactic adopted by Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq that led President Obama to order the complete pull out, with minimum or no advisory role. It appears that Tehran gave Karzai the same advice and suggested either not signing the deal or including a clause that would allow Karzai to remove the Americans on demand.

India balances on a tightrope

India's position will continue to remain ambiguous until clear picture emerges as to what role Pakistan will play in the Afghanistan endgame. Pakistan has no interest in normalizing relations with India unless in return it gets its own slice of Afghan pie.

India, on one hand has a thriving economic and military understanding, if not an entirely active relationship, with the US. Israel, on the other hand has emerged as the second-largest defense supplier for India, including technology transfers. India depends on Iran for its energy needs, ports and infrastructure to access Afghanistan and Central Asia. Moreover, Indians and Persians have a civilization relationship that is more enduring than their relationships with any other powers and their interests over Afghanistan coincide.

Israel too has strong relationships with both India and Iran, but prefers now that no one in their wider region acquires nuclear weapons other than themselves. After all, it was Achemenian emperor who freed Jews from the captivity of Babylon.

Israel can use India's good offices with Tehran to normalize its relationship with Iran. Iran has some influence on Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas and this is probably also on the mind of Obama. The permanent war situation serves no one's interest. Israel's right should be guaranteed with a separate home land for Palestine. This is the only way out for all sides after colonial power left their legacy of divide and rule.

Why so much drama and anxieties on so many fronts the US is facing? The departure of a junior Indian diplomat from US soil is the least of the complex issues. What causes the most anxiety in the minds of American policy-makers is questioning what the other side is up to when regarding the Indian-Sino relationship or India's refusal to participate in what appears to be a military "Asian Pivot" that the Chinese regard as provocative.

As a facet of the pivot on Asia, the US would like to have a permanent military base in Afghanistan to keep an eye on all the major players like Russia, China, Iran and potential adversaries including Taliban and its allied terrorists. Chinese military activism against has increased on disputed islands and territorial waters of South China Sea. The unsettled boundary dispute with India and neighbors is also very much alive. A deal between Afghanistan and the US lines up with the many other issues caught within the geopolitical sphere of the US pivot to Asia that need to be resolved - and quickly.

Bipin Shah is a US-based freelance historian and writer. His primary areas of interest are ancient history of India, geopolitics and national security.

(Copyright 2014 Bipin Shah)

Fair lot of effort put in this work.

Kind of gives one answer to the BSA agrrement that US wants Karzai to sign up and his reluctance for it would upset the Chinese who are planning ot invest and have the money!

[SSridhar]

^ Fantastic writing by Bipin Shah.

[rajanb]

^^^ More Tenterhooks

Rec'd via E-Mail from FP Daily Briefing:

Post: Karzai building case against Americans



Afghan President Hamid Karzai has "frequently lashed at the U.S. military for causing civilian casualties in its raids," but senior Afghan officials told the Washington Post's Kevin Scieff that "behind the scenes, he has been building a far broader case against the Americans, suggesting that they may have aided or conducted shadowy insurgent-style attacks to undermine his government" (Post). According to Scieff, Karzai has created a list of dozens of attacks that he believes the United States may have been involved in, including the Jan. 17 attack on the La Taverna du Liban restaurant in Kabul that killed 21 people, including three Americans. James B. Cunningham, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, noted that: "It's a deeply conspiratorial view that's divorced from reality." While it is unclear where Karzai's suspicions have come from, they help explain why it has been so hard to conclude the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that will determine the size and scope of any U.S. troop presence that remains in the country when the NATO combat mission ends in December. Bonus read: "Reading Hamid Karzai," Marvin G. Weinbaum (SouthAsia).

[ramana]

Well David Headley did the recce for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and till now US has not denied he was on their payroll while doing all that.
To add mirchi/chilli powder to injury they have kept him out of Indian cutody to preserve their role in it.
And they have so many folks workign at cross purposes who knows.

[SSridhar]

Hagel Hints at US Impatience with Karzai - PTI, The Hindu

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Thursday hinted at growing US impatience with Afghan President Hamid Karzai for not signing an accord permitting American troops to remain in his country after the US combat mission ends in December.

Hagel told reporters flying with him to Poland that at some point, Karzai’s indecision will interfere with Washington’s need to plan the post—2014 military mission that Karzai himself has said he favours.

“You can’t just keep deferring and deferring, because at some point the realities of planning and budgeting, it collides,” Hagel said aboard his plane. {But, Karzai is not deferring and deferring. he has said that the next President would decide the issue after the elections, hasn't he ?}

He said US officials, including Gen Joseph Dunford, the top US military commander in Afghanistan, have pressed Karzai and “talk with him constantly.”

Hagel said he respects Karzai’s right to decide the matter as he sees fit, and noted that the United States’ ability to influence Karzai’s decision—making is “limited.”

He added that US allies who are willing to help train and advise Afghan forces beyond 2014 also are eager to know if there will be a US—Afghan security agreement soon.

The US now has about 39,000 troops in Afghanistan but would reduce that figure to zero by year’s end unless a security accord is signed in the months ahead.

Hagel was visiting Warsaw to consult with Polish officials on Afghanistan and other security issues.

[ramana]

I think Karzai found the US weak spot for all the insults and mollycoddling of TSP done by US. The 'leftover' troops are a trigger group for Central Asia and to protect the TSP regime. So its big US interest to get that BSA in place.
It has nothing to do with Afghanistan. If they wanted to they could have trained the Afghans all these years.
Even this was an US CBM to TSP to leave a weak ANA in Kabul for strategic depth aytime they felt like.