Afghans on their own after '16, Obama says

He outlines drawdown till final combat exit

President Barack Obama heads to the White House Rose Garden on Tuesday to address the future of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. “Americans have learned that it’s harder to end wars than it is to begin them,” he said. “Yet this is how wars end in the 21st century.”
President Barack Obama heads to the White House Rose Garden on Tuesday to address the future of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. “Americans have learned that it’s harder to end wars than it is to begin them,” he said. “Yet this is how wars end in the 21st century.”

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he plans to greatly reduce U.S. forces in Afghanistan by the end of the year and withdraw the last combat troops by the end of 2016, declaring that "it's time to turn the page on a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Under the plan, outlined by Obama in the Rose Garden, the United States would leave 9,800 troops in Afghanistan after 2014 but cut that number by half in 2015. By the end of 2016, it would keep only a vestigial force to protect the embassy in Kabul and help the Afghans with military purchases and other security matters.

Obama said the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan would free up military resources for the United States to focus on an emerging set of terrorism threats in the Middle East and North Africa -- a strategy he plans to articulate in a commencement address today at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

"Americans have learned that it's harder to end wars than it is to begin them," he said. "Yet this is how wars end in the 21st century."

Despite Obama's attempt to draw to a close more than a decade of U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan, he said the United States will continue to have thousands of troops engaged in lethal counterterrorism operations for at least two more years. He also acknowledged that the U.S. will leave behind a mixed legacy.

"We have to recognize Afghanistan will not be a perfect place, and it is not America's responsibility to make it one," he said. "The future of Afghanistan must be decided by Afghans."

Obama credited American forces, which were first deployed by President George W. Bush within a month of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, with striking significant blows against al-Qaida's leadership, eliminating Osama bin Laden and preventing Afghanistan from being used as a base for strikes against the U.S.

The drawdown blueprint is contingent on Afghanistan's government signing a stalled bilateral security agreement, which Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign. But U.S. officials said they're confident that his successor will finalize the deal.

Both candidates who are on the ballot in next month's runoff election -- former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah and ex-Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai -- welcomed Obama's announcement Tuesday.

Officials said Obama was outlining his decisions before the conclusion of the Afghan elections and the signing of the security agreement because the military needs to begin making plans. If the security accord is not signed, the drawdown will speed up and all U.S. troops will leave Afghanistan, said the administration officials, who briefed reporters after Obama's announcement on condition that they not be identified by name.

But assuming that the security deal is signed, a senior U.S. official said, the residual force would include trainers and Special Operations forces to fight remaining al-Qaida loyalists, most of whom are believed to be scattered in the mountains and remote districts of eastern Afghanistan.

There are about 32,000 U.S. troops in that country, and military commanders had recommended leaving at least 10,000 after the formal end of the combat mission in 2014. The troops who remain will train Afghan security forces and support counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al-Qaida, the official said. But from 2015 onward, they would be consolidated at the Bagram base and in Kabul.

The U.S. troops will be supplemented by those of NATO countries, but the alliance members are expected to follow the U.S. lead in withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of 2016. That would leave Afghanistan's security largely in the hands of the Afghans.

"I think it's ambitious," said Michele Flournoy, who served as undersecretary of defense for policy during Obama's first term. "If all goes extremely well, it's something that might be manageable, but I think that the truth is, the implementation of this will be informed by how events on the ground evolve."

The 9,800 troops left behind is a larger number than some in the administration had wanted, but the sharp decline in U.S. combat deaths this year has removed some of the pressure to pull the troops out faster.

Others have complained that the planned withdrawal is too quick.

Gen. Jack Keane, a retired Army officer who served as vice chief of staff of the Army during the George W. Bush administration, said the withdrawal schedule projected by Obama is too fast and too rigid. Keane said that 9,800 U.S. troops "is absolutely the bare minimum to get the job done" and that twice that number is what is required.

The rapid shrinkage and consolidation of the force in Kabul and Bagram, he said, will make it harder for the U.S. to carry out counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan and buttress the Afghan military's effort. Any withdrawal, he said, should be based on the conditions on the ground and not rigid dates.

"Just arbitrarily pulling those forces out absolutely risks successful completion of the mission," he said.

His statement was mirrored by some of the president's harshest critics on foreign policy. Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire called the decision shortsighted and warned that it would embolden enemies.

"The president's decision to set an arbitrary date for the full withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is a monumental mistake and a triumph of politics over strategy," the three Republicans said in a joint statement.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, also warned against an "arbitrary number from Washington."

"I am pleased that today's decision supports our military's request for forces, but I look forward to hearing more specifics on how the proposed troop number will adequately cover the defined missions," he said in an emailed statement.

The formal end of the Afghan war has triggered a White House effort to reframe America's foreign policy after more than a decade of conflict.

The U.S. tried to keep a residual force in Iraq as combat missions there came to an end, but Washington and Baghdad were unable to finalize a security agreement. In the vacuum left by the American military, Iraq has been battered by resurgent waves of violence.

The president is seeking to avoid a similar scenario in Afghanistan, for security and political purposes. While Obama long opposed the Iraq war, he oversaw a surge of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, giving him greater responsibility for the mission's success or failure.

Even Obama has at times expressed skepticism over the prospects for success there. But he struck an optimistic tone during a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Sunday, telling military commanders that the process of turning over security responsibilities has gone "better than I might have expected just a year ago."

Ahead of his remarks, Obama spoke with Karzai, who has had a tumultuous relationship with the White House. The two leaders did not see each other while Obama was in Afghanistan, but they did speak by phone as Air Force One was returning to Washington.

Obama has also discussed his plans with several European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

As the military draws down in Afghanistan, the CIA also will gradually close its bases along the Pakistan border and pull most of its officers back to the capital, U.S. officials said.

While the CIA uses its own private security force to guard its bases, it relies on the military for transport, logistics and emergency medical evacuation, and the civilian spy agency is not willing to risk a significant deployment of officers in rural Afghanistan without U.S. troops nearby, the officials said.

Information for this article was contributed by Mark Landler of The New York Times; by Julie Pace, Lolita C. Baldor, Ken Dilanian, Donna Cassata and Amir Shah of The Associated Press; and by Margaret Talev, David Lerman, Lisa Lerer, Tony Capaccio and Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News.

A Section on 05/28/2014

Upcoming Events