WASHINGTON – Next spring’s presidential election will be a key test for Afghanistan and possibly for the future of U.S. involvement in the war-torn land, but it is unclear how voters will decide on new leadership.
The political and security transitions set for next year are top priorities for both the United States and Afghanistan.
At the heart of the political transition is the national election. In less than a year, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is term limited, is scheduled to step down.
Nader Nadery, a top official representing Afghanistan’s Fair and Free Elections Foundation, said Thursday the election will bring a new leader with a fresh mandate to govern and negotiate on behalf of the Afghan people. Nadery testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
What will a change in political leadership mean for a war that has now stretched into a 12th year? Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said President Karzai must decide whether his government is willing to support a longer-term U.S. troop presence.
“The ball is in his court,” Menendez said. “But he and the Afghan people should understand that if we fail to reach an agreement [on future relations], it will not be for lack of trying – on America’s end.”
For America’s part, Menendez said President Barack Obama should signal to Afghans and our allies what a post-2014 U.S. troop presence would look like.
With 63,000 U.S. troops still based in Afghanistan, White House and Pentagon officials said Tuesday that Obama might pull the military out ahead of schedule – as soon as next summer. Earlier this year, he promised that military operations would cease by the end of 2014.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., urged the Obama administration to quickly make a decision on the role of the U.S. in Afghanistan’s future. Apparently referring to corruption charges made against Karzai, Corker said “I think we helped create a monster.”
Improvements in the political transition need to go hand-in-hand with the security transition, panelists agreed.
Although Nadery said that Obama’s consideration of removing all troops in 2014 showed confidence in Afghanistan, it would send a terrible message to the United States’ “true partners” in the country – the Afghan people.
But Peter Lavoy, acting assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs, said the U.S. is not pulling out, but transitioning to the role of ally in Afghanistan.
In October 2012, Afghanistan had more than 350,000 troops in its Afghan National Security Forces. Six years ago, the Army was fewer than 80,000, and recruitment was a problem. With this growth, Afghan leaders have been able to take responsibility for leading security operations in Afghanistan, with less and less reliance on the NATO-led International Security Assistance Forces, according to Nadery.
In addition to the numbers change, Lavoy noted a qualitative change. He said the Afghan Army is now leading combat forces, performing more operations themselves, identifying threats, and, going after those threats successfully.
While the Army and police are taking more responsibility, there is still doubt as to whether Afghanistan’s security forces can continue making progress.
“They are capable on their own,” Lavoy said. “But we continue to provide support that improves their effectiveness.”
Among the transitions taking place, the consensus at the hearing was that the election of 2014 will be of crucial importance to both Afghanistan and the U.S. Ultimately, it’s the political shift that will determine whether there is a successful security shift.
“As long as the Afghan people and their government want the United States as a partner, we will not leave Afghanistan,” Menendez said.