What's new

NATO may station up to 12,000 troops in post-2014 Afghanistan

Srinivas

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
-26
Country
India
Location
India
NATO may station up to 12,000 troops in post-2014 Afghanistan

BRUSSELS: NATO may station up to 12,000 troops in Afghanistan to train and assist Kabul's forces after its combat mission against the Taliban ends there in 2014, US officials said on Friday.

US Pentagon spokesman George Little said NATO was considering deployment of between 8,000 and 12,000 troops, including any US contribution, but no final decision has yet been made.

Reports of a US presence of 8,000 to 12,000 troops "are not correct," he said.

President Barack Obama "is still reviewing options and has not made a decision about the size of a possible US presence after 2014," he said, adding that discussions will now continue with NATO allies and Afghanistan.

US press reports suggest Washington wants a US troop figure well below 10,000.

The issue of NATO's post-2014 mission in Afghanistan is sensitive, with the allies anxious to ensure that the efforts in blood and money of more than 12 difficult years are maintained by a strong Afghan army.

However, the war has grown increasingly unpopular and some countries are reluctant to make a large commitment given the risks still posed by the Taliban.

Additionally, there has been uncertainty over the US role as Washington and Kabul negotiate an accord on the legal status of US troops after 2014.

The US government has taken a hard line, insisting on a watertight accord before any deployment is made. Officials say no agreement is likely until much later this year.

Earlier, US defense secretary Leon Panetta had declined to give precise figures for the post-2014 mission and stressed that NATO was looking at a variety of options and seeking to maintain the most flexibility.

Panetta, who also rejected the report of 8,000 to 12,000 US troops being involved, said the training and advisory mission would have a presence throughout Afghanistan.

There "will be a presence in Kabul and in the North, South, West and East," he told a press conference at the end of a two-day NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels.

He also detailed the US troop withdrawal programme after Obama last month announced that 34,000 soldiers -- just over half the current number -- would be brought home this year.

US forces will be largely maintained for the upcoming Afghan fighting season and then reduced to about 50,000 by November and 32,000 by February, staying at that level during elections, after which the remainder will go home, he said.

The meeting also discussed a proposal to keep the Afghan army at around 350,000 through to 2018, rather than reduce it steadily to some 230,000 once foreign troops leave, officials said.

They gave no precise reason for this possible change of tack beyond the need to reassure Afghans that NATO was not going to abandon them.

Ministers spent a lot of time too on how the 28-member alliance could make tight budgets go further as governments cut spending to balance their books.

The United States, NATO's dominant power, has increasingly complained that European defence cuts mean it shoulders more of the burden and Panetta warned again Friday over the dangers.

Deep spending cuts and what he described as "US political gridlock" were a risk to military capability, he said.

"I do fear, if it is not already so, that the alliance will be stretched too thin," he said.

Panetta, 74, had not expected to come to Brussels but the Senate delayed a vote on President Obama's nominee to replace him, Chuck Hagel, until next week.

NATO may station up to 12,000 troops in post-2014 Afghanistan - The Times of India
 
NATO may station up to 12,000 troops in post-2014 Afghanistan

BRUSSELS: NATO may station up to 12,000 troops in Afghanistan to train and assist Kabul's forces after its combat mission against the Taliban ends there in 2014, US officials said on Friday.

US Pentagon spokesman George Little said NATO was considering deployment of between 8,000 and 12,000 troops, including any US contribution, but no final decision has yet been made.

Reports of a US presence of 8,000 to 12,000 troops "are not correct," he said.

President Barack Obama "is still reviewing options and has not made a decision about the size of a possible US presence after 2014," he said, adding that discussions will now continue with NATO allies and Afghanistan.

US press reports suggest Washington wants a US troop figure well below 10,000.

The issue of NATO's post-2014 mission in Afghanistan is sensitive, with the allies anxious to ensure that the efforts in blood and money of more than 12 difficult years are maintained by a strong Afghan army.

However, the war has grown increasingly unpopular and some countries are reluctant to make a large commitment given the risks still posed by the Taliban.

Additionally, there has been uncertainty over the US role as Washington and Kabul negotiate an accord on the legal status of US troops after 2014.

The US government has taken a hard line, insisting on a watertight accord before any deployment is made. Officials say no agreement is likely until much later this year.

Earlier, US defense secretary Leon Panetta had declined to give precise figures for the post-2014 mission and stressed that NATO was looking at a variety of options and seeking to maintain the most flexibility.

Panetta, who also rejected the report of 8,000 to 12,000 US troops being involved, said the training and advisory mission would have a presence throughout Afghanistan.

There "will be a presence in Kabul and in the North, South, West and East," he told a press conference at the end of a two-day NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels.

He also detailed the US troop withdrawal programme after Obama last month announced that 34,000 soldiers -- just over half the current number -- would be brought home this year.

US forces will be largely maintained for the upcoming Afghan fighting season and then reduced to about 50,000 by November and 32,000 by February, staying at that level during elections, after which the remainder will go home, he said.

The meeting also discussed a proposal to keep the Afghan army at around 350,000 through to 2018, rather than reduce it steadily to some 230,000 once foreign troops leave, officials said.

They gave no precise reason for this possible change of tack beyond the need to reassure Afghans that NATO was not going to abandon them.

Ministers spent a lot of time too on how the 28-member alliance could make tight budgets go further as governments cut spending to balance their books.

The United States, NATO's dominant power, has increasingly complained that European defence cuts mean it shoulders more of the burden and Panetta warned again Friday over the dangers.

Deep spending cuts and what he described as "US political gridlock" were a risk to military capability, he said.

"I do fear, if it is not already so, that the alliance will be stretched too thin," he said.

Panetta, 74, had not expected to come to Brussels but the Senate delayed a vote on President Obama's nominee to replace him, Chuck Hagel, until next week.

NATO may station up to 12,000 troops in post-2014 Afghanistan - The Times of India

USA still want to stay there after 2014 ? seems like their found another land of America :D
 
USA still want to stay there after 2014 ? seems like their found another land of America :D

Afganistan is the pivot to control central Asia and south Asia and so they will be there even after 2014. But this time the operations will be more covert in nature destabilizing the region and increasing the militancy.
A stable and prosperous Asia is not in the interest of west .
 
Afganistan is the pivot to control central Asia and south Asia and so they will be there even after 2014. But this time the operations will be more covert in nature destabilizing the region and increasing the militancy.
A stable and prosperous Asia is not in the interest of west .

USA dare to mess with our region ? :D
 
India had it covered by spending billions on India pak border :cheers:

It is Pakistan that is in trouble after 2014 as there will be no billions from USA but terror will be there.

USA dare to mess with our region ? :D

Growing India and China is not in the interest of USA and they will do what ever it takes to destabilize this region, They came to Afganistan in the name of ending terror but after a Decade of blood shed they destabilized Pakistan and increased the radicalization, they are to blame for this mess and thousands of civilians blood.
 
I am waiting for the day where SAARC will take care of South Asian problems with out external interferences :cheers:

India and Pakistan need to solve problem between them and need to become ally to make SAARC successful (you know Bangladesh is the main mastermind of SAARC :meeting:)
 
India and Pakistan need to solve problem between them and need to become ally to make SAARC successful (you know Bangladesh is the main mastermind of SAARC :meeting:)

Mate a progressive BD with strong economy is what India needs :cheers:

Hope the agreements between India and BD (Border agreement,Padma and Teesta water treaty) goes through beneficial to both the countries :cheers:

South Asia has a single future and Destiny and India do not want radicalization in Pakistan or any part of South Asia.
 
Afghanistan has captivaingly captured attention of the international comunity for more than last three decades but hasnot been understood throughout the history . There is a clear historical evidence to suggest why none of the great Empires succeded in occupying Afghanistan.from great Persian Empire to the USSR and now US.
best of luck and wait ................
 
India had it covered by spending billions on India pak border :cheers:

It is Pakistan that is in trouble after 2014 as there will be no billions from USA but terror will be there.



Growing India and China is not in the interest of USA and they will do what ever it takes to destabilize this region, They came to Afganistan in the name of ending terror but after a Decade of blood shed they destabilized Pakistan and increased the radicalization, they are to blame for this mess and thousands of civilians blood.

If securing the border with wires and mines was the solution then Pakistan would have employed this method already. Terrorists used to sneak through Indo-Pak border for the sake of Kashmir jihad so just better bet on Pakistan winning otherwise there is no future for this region.
 
I am waiting for the day where SAARC will take care of South Asian problems with out external interferences :cheers:

that's even worth than NATO. Nobody want to an India dominant organization to take control unless some other big nations join in to make SAARC more balanced.

SAARC won't even be a viable economic bloc if China not join in.
 

Back
Top Bottom