HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 07:01:41 GMT Server: Apache Set-Cookie: NYT-S=deleted; expires=Thu, 01-Jan-1970 00:00:01 GMT; path=/; domain=www.nytimes.com Set-Cookie: NYT-S=0MoUCXUgfZmc3DXrmvxADeHAQwVY49.pJrdeFz9JchiAIUFL2BEX5FWcV.Ynx4rkFI; expires=Sat, 28-Jun-2014 07:01:41 GMT; path=/; domain=.nytimes.com Location: http://ift.tt/1iuqBMm Content-Length: 0 nnCoection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: Apache Cache-Control: no-cache Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Length: 57492 Accept-Ranges: bytes Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 07:01:41 GMT X-Varnish: 1898948500 1898948463 Age: 1 Via: 1.1 varnish Connection: keep-alive X-Cache: HIT
http://nyti.ms/1gCaSzr
Afghan soldiers at a training facility last year. President Obama announced on Tuesday that the United States would withdraw nearly all troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2016. Credit Anja Niedringhaus/Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan — In recent years, the growing resentment in Afghanistan toward American forces’ raids and airstrikes has been balanced, in part, by concerns about what might happen after foreign troops leave.
That ambivalence about the American presence here was again illustrated on Wednesday in reactions to President Obama’s announcement that the United States would leave 9,800 troops in Afghanistan after the NATO-led combat mission here ends this year, and that nearly all troops would be gone by the end of 2016.
In interviews with officials and business leaders, one common reaction to the decision was the belief that too few American troops were being left behind for too few years.
Some worried that announcing such a short deadline would allow the Taliban to easily wait out the American presence, or that the quick drawdown would put Afghanistan’s weak economy at greater risk of failure.
Many of the Afghan politicians who are considered progressives to the West also were the most hawkish in their response to the news, fearful that the coming withdrawal would embolden conservatives to roll back the rights won by women and minorities here since 2001.
“The government and the people are facing tremendous challenges,†said Fawzia Koofi, a member of Parliament and women’s rights advocate. She added: “I think at least we need another 10 years of direct support and five years of indirect support from the international community, especially the U.S., to turn this country into a proper and prosperous country.â€
Underpinning the desire to see American forces remain is Afghans’ keen sense of history. The American decision to leave Afghanistan to its own devices after Soviet forces withdrew in 1989 is viewed here as a betrayal that ultimately gave rise to the Taliban, and the American invasion in 2001.
Most Afghans hate the thought of repeating the civil strife of the past two decades, and the widespread perception until Tuesday was that the United States’ desire to sign a long-term security agreement with Afghanistan meant that American forces would remain for 10 more years, or perhaps even longer.
The security deal still has to be signed. But both Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, the contenders to replace President Hamid Karzai in the presidential runoff vote scheduled for June 14, have said they would sign the deal as soon as they took office.
Yet neither Mr. Ghani nor Mr. Abdullah chose to comment on Mr. Obama’s announcement. Neither wanted to risk alienating Afghanistan’s largest benefactor or turning off voters, said officials from both campaigns.
Even though few of those interviewed said they expected large numbers of American troops to remain in Afghanistan after the NATO-led mission ends this year, some said they were still caught off guard by the speed with which the American forces would be withdrawn.
Hajji Agha Lalai, a member of the provincial council in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, noted that the Americans had promised that “they will stay until Afghans are able to defend their country on their own.â€
But “if we look at the situation now,†he added, “it’s pretty shaky and unstable.â€
Scratch the surface, though, and even those who were adamant about the need for American forces to remain said they did not want to see them actually conducting raids.
“There is no need for them to go to the villages,†said Ahmad Jan, 30, who runs a small jewelry shop in Kabul. “They should stay in their bases and just train the Afghans to do the fighting.â€
The United States could not overcome the Taliban with 100,000 soldiers, Mr. Jan pointed out, and concluded, “We have proven that we are better fighters than Americans.â€
Speaking to reporters, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, the top American commander in Afghanistan, sought to highlight the certainty provided by Mr. Obama’s announcement. “I believe that the decision was good news for the Afghan people,†he said. “It eliminates the uncertainty about the future.â€
Few Afghans seemed convinced. A running theme connecting much of the reaction was the widely held view here that the Taliban are a proxy force for Pakistan, which is the real problem that the United States needed to deal with. The American refusal to militarily confront Pakistan, where much of the Taliban leadership resides, is a source of near universal frustration in Afghanistan.
Mr. Karzai channeled that frustration in his almost offhand reaction to Mr. Obama’s announcement. The Afghan leader has in recent years often been the country’s most vocal critic of the United States outside the Taliban, and he has refused to sign the security deal, which he negotiated, in part because he has maintained that the United States is too close to Pakistan.
A statement from his office focused largely on reports that Pakistani forces had shelled villages in northeastern Afghanistan for the past two days, saying that General Dunford and Ambassador James Cunningham dismissed the reports as “exaggerated†when they met with Mr. Karzai on Wednesday.
But later at the same meeting, the statement said, Afghan military officials provided a briefing saying that more than 300 mortar shells had struck Kunar Province in the past two days, wounding 12 people and destroying homes.
At the very end, it mentioned that General Dunford had briefed the Afghan president on Mr. Obama’s announcement, but it offered no comment beyond a truncated recounting of what the American commander had said.
Even the Taliban offered a tepid response on Wednesday. The insurgents condemned Mr. Obama’s announcement, but dispensed with their usual rhetorical flourishes.
“What American leaders might do in two years, they should do it today,†they said, adding that the Taliban “jihad won’t be canceled by the decrease in number of soldiers.â€
More on nytimes.com
Site Index
Source: Top Stories - Google News - http://ift.tt/1nF5Umj
0 comments:
Post a Comment