iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Afghanistan War: U.S. Troops To End Combat Role Next Year

Afghanistan War

ROBERT BURNS   02/ 1/12 09:31 PM ET  AP

BRUSSELS — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta laid out the administration's most explicit portrayal of the U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan, saying Wednesday that U.S. and other international forces in Afghanistan expect to end their combat role in 2013 and continue a training and advisory role with Afghan forces through 2014.

Panetta's remarks to reporters traveling with him to a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels showed how the foreign military role in Afghanistan is expected to evolve from the current high-intensity fight against the Taliban to a support role with Afghans fully in the lead. The timeline fits neatly into the U.S. political calendar, enabling President Barack Obama to declare on the campaign trail this year that in addition to bringing all U.S. troops home from Iraq and beginning a troop drawdown in Afghanistan, he also has a target period for ending the U.S. combat role there.

It also serves to possibly bridge an apparent gap between France and the rest of the NATO partners of the U.S. on defining the end game in Afghanistan.

All NATO members in November 2010 endorsed a plan to keep forces in Afghanistan until the end of 2014. But France this week appeared to throw that plan into doubt when President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed, with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at his side and seemingly in agreement, that NATO end its mission in 2013 – one year earlier than planned.

Sarkozy also said, however, that France would provide support for the training of Afghan forces beyond 2013, so his approach might not be entirely different from the one Panetta outlined in which allied troops shed their combat role in the second half of 2013 but remain through 2014 to train, advise and assist.

Panetta said he hoped to hear more from the French delegation at the NATO talks Thursday and Friday.

Panetta called 2013 a critical year for the Afghanistan mission that has dragged on for more than a decade with little sign that the Taliban will be decisively defeated. He noted that NATO and the Afghan government intend to begin a final phase of handing off sections of the country to Afghan security control in mid-2013.

"Hopefully by the mid to latter part of 2013 we'll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role," he said. He added that this "doesn't mean we're not going to be combat-ready," but rather that the U.S. and other international forces will no longer be in "the formal combat role we're in now."

Panetta said the administration wants to make sure that the Afghan forces, after foreign troops depart, are "sufficient and sustainable," but noted that will require continuing financial support not only from the United States but also from allies and many other countries.

"One of the things we'll be discussing (in Brussels) is what the size of that (Afghan) force should be, but a lot of that will be dependent on the funds that are going to be put on the table in order to sustain that force," he said. "That's one of the things, frankly, I'm going to be pushing at this (meeting)."

A senior defense official traveling with Panetta said the U.S. believes Afghanistan will not need as big a force as is now being built. NATO has set a target of 352,000 Afghan soldiers and police. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the Pentagon, said the U.S. thinks a smaller force would be adequate, but he would not be more specific

He likened this approach to the way Obama managed the final two years of U.S. military involvement in Iraq. Obama declared an end to the U.S. combat role there on Aug. 31, 2010 but kept tens of thousands of troops there through the end of last year to continue training and advising Iraqi security forces.

Panetta said no decisions have been made about how many U.S. troops would be required to remain there once the combat role has ended. He suggested, however, that large reductions, below the 68,000 troop level projected for this September, were unlikely in the months immediately after the shift. The U.S. now has about 91,000 troops there as part of the International Security Assistance Force. The fact that much military work will remain after 2013 "demands that we have a strong presence there," he said.

Although Panetta made no mention of it, U.S. Marines in Afghanistan already are making that transition out of a combat role. They are operating in Helmand province in southwestern Afghanistan, where the Taliban have been greatly weakened, and are on track to reduce their numbers significantly this year. Panetta's remarks indicated that this switch into a support role will be applied across Afghanistan, assuming no major setbacks against the Taliban and continued progress in training Afghan forces.

Many U.S. forces already are training and advising Afghan forces.

Marine Gen. John Allen, the overall commander of international forces in Afghanistan, has been talking publicly since last fall about converting the military role from combat to what he has called "security assistance." But Panetta went further in identifying mid- to late-2013 as the target for completing this conversion countrywide.

Panetta was in Brussels to attend a NATO meeting at which this and other issues related to the war in Afghanistan are expected to top the agenda. The session is intended to help pave the way for key decisions to be announced at a summit meeting of NATO heads of government in Chicago in May.

In Washington, a senior European diplomat said Sarkozy's initial comments caused confusion among other NATO allies. The diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity to relate internal discussions, said the French president was referring to the shift from combat operations to a training mission in 2013, although he acknowledged that Sarkozy appeared to be calling for all operations to end next year. The diplomat said NATO plans to leave the 2014 deadline in place.

On his second trip to Europe since becoming Pentagon chief last July 1, Panetta is gathering with his counterparts at a delicate time for NATO, not only because of the uncertainty surrounding the military mission in Afghanistan but also because of a growing gap in military power between the U.S. and nearly all other European members of the alliance.

That chasm is not expected to narrow even as the U.S. reduces its defense budget by nearly $490 billion over the coming decade and reduces the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

The U.S. remains the leader of a 28-nation NATO, but the Obama administration has made no secret of its intention to shift focus toward Asia and the Middle East. It announced last week that it will remove two Army brigades from Europe in the next two years, leaving one in Germany and one in Italy. The alliance also is quietly discussing the possible withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Europe in coming years. The nuclear issue is on the agenda for the Brussels meeting.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said last week that the two brigades being removed from Europe will be eliminated rather than reassigned to U.S. bases. Both are based in Germany – the 172nd Infantry Brigade, in Grafenwoehr, and the 170th Infantry Brigade, in Baumholder. Odierno said that in the long run this change will benefit both the United States and its European partners because U.S. Army combat and support units will periodically rotate in and out of Europe for training and joint exercises that are designed to meet the needs of the European forces.

___

Robert Burns can be followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/robertburnsAP

Associated Press writer Anne Gearan contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

BRUSSELS — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta laid out the administration's most explicit portrayal of the U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan, saying Wednesday that U.S. and other international forces in ...
BRUSSELS — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta laid out the administration's most explicit portrayal of the U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan, saying Wednesday that U.S. and other international forces in ...
Filed by Alana Horowitz  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,410
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (109 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Ruth1966
No PC, no apologies.
10:01 PM on 02/03/2012
That headline, ("End in Sight") should read: "Election in sight"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kritikos
Intelligence is not a science
08:00 PM on 02/02/2012
Now or later--it doesn't matter. History has shown that 'foreign occupation'--for whatever the proclaimed reason-- of Afghanistan always fails and wears out after time. Only a fool(s) would think that this trend can be changed by the U.S and its allies.
09:16 PM on 02/02/2012
Because "foreign occupation of Afghanistan --- always fails and wears out after time," as you correctly observe from the history of Afghanistan (with possible tangential reference to Vietnam), I think it does matter to those soldiers not yet dead and those innocent civilians caught in the crossfire whether the US withdraws now or later. I guess you probably meant now or later doesn't matter in terms or victory or defeat, and weren't talking about the expense in casualities, money, and relations with other countries. Anyway, it will probably be more later than now, because the Secretary of Defense announced this evening that he expects Isreal to attack Iran before summer. The US probably wants to have forces standing nearby in Afghanistan when/if that happens, so "now" appears to be off the table, and "later" is beginning to look even later than later. Afghanistan might then be sold to the public as a victory, simply because the US occupation served useful for a war with Iran. Just a twist that you might not have thought of.
07:12 PM on 02/02/2012
When these veterans, and all other veterans from the military services, come home, please remember:
"The veterans should be celebrated for the distinguished citizens they have become."
Quote from "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors", by James D. Hornfischer.
06:14 PM on 02/02/2012
Bring back one of those fully loaded tanks for me. I could do with one here in Brooklyn. The neighborhood is getting real bad....hurry home !!
06:00 PM on 02/02/2012
And I just heard on the radio (5:00 eastern time) that Defense Secretart Panetta MEANT that a draw down of troops was ONE POSSIBILBITY, NOT DEFINITELY PLANNED --- this information coming from a White House spokesman. So earlier today, the troops were coming home next year, and later today (after hearing from the public and weighing the politics) the homecoming of the troops is just a possibility --- so everyone applauding he homecoming and end of the war and everyone condemning the end of the war were just spinning their wheels while the president remains undecided about which course will get him the most votes. If you listen, you can hear him thinking: "Should I end the war? Should I just say I'm going to end the war and add that to my long list of lies? Should I keep the war going for another eleven years?" Whichever he decides to do, Obama supporters will applaud it as the right thing to do. I voted for this man --- Commander in Chief, Campaigner in Chief, Liar in Chief.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Morgan Stubblefield
05:49 PM on 02/02/2012
We have another deployment ahead of us and this news could change or cancel it. What angers me to no end is that if he goes, he misses his sons' 2nd birthday. Our anniversary (again). He misses seeing him speak and read and learn. He could very well die. And for what? For the Taliban to retake the country again? So, for nothing? He's not a damn pawn, he's a person and a husband and a father and his death should have meaning.
04:16 PM on 02/02/2012
The mission is complete. Taliban has been torn apart, the leader killed and many of the leaders who might try to take over decimated, but they may rise again. The right will be ok with withdrawal. Training may be a good idea, but I think not. Still there may be agreements in place with the Afgan government, such as it is. Time to leave and let the grass of ignorance grow again from the fertile seed of a barbaric nation. We can not change them.
06:11 PM on 02/02/2012
Tell that to Obama --- because after you read that the troops ARE coming home next year and posted your comment, the White House announced that Panetta was not making a statement of policy, he was just running his mouth about one possibility. So apparently the President has not reached your conclusion that "The mission is complete." By the way --- you're right, but the President hasn't figured out whether admitting you're right will get him more votes or less.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dandy12
Moderate, Progressive fiscal conservative.
03:54 PM on 02/02/2012
That's good for a war that never should have happened on the level that occurred. We could have run the Taliban out of the cities, and had special OPs Troops and drones do the work in the mountains and Pakistani border areas. Don't ask the Generals, they're all like Westmoreland was, i.e. always asking for more in any given perpetual war scenario. The Mideast is like quicksand, or a black hole.
03:19 PM on 02/02/2012
So the Taliban wait a little longer to take over again as they keep picking off our kids. Like the old song the candy man. The Taliban can . So in the meantime we train the "afgan soldiers" like the last time so they can shoot our kids. The Russian got the hell out of there .We had supplied the Taliban with rockets etc that they use on us. Wow what a bunch of smart politicians we have
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Guy Fratianni
my micro has gone bio
03:22 PM on 02/02/2012
I'm of the guise never train a religious wacko even if they claim to be on your side.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
michaelnel4449
Infidel chipping away at the 2 party system
06:26 PM on 02/02/2012
Even if religious wacko's are doing the training?
03:07 PM on 02/02/2012
And the taliban will have 5 new leaders after obama releases them from gitmo to run their operations in afghan!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Guy Fratianni
my micro has gone bio
03:16 PM on 02/02/2012
Really who are they what are their names and feel free to tell us what the CIA is saying about them
04:19 PM on 02/02/2012
So far three of the 5 have been named. According to sources familiar with the talks in the US and in Afghanistan, the handful of Taliban figures will include Mullah Khair Khowa, a former interior minister, and Noorullah Noori, a former governor in northern Afghanistan. More controversially, the Taliban are demanding the release of the former army commander Mullah Fazl Akhund. Washington is reported to be considering formally handing him over to the custody of another country, possibly Qatar.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:37 PM on 02/02/2012
In a related story, the Taliban has announced they will probably increase their presence in Afghanistan shortly after the US November elections, depending on the outcome of said elections.
02:59 PM on 02/02/2012
And the Taliban will fill the power vacuum the minute our combat Troops leave Afghanistan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:09 PM on 02/02/2012
At a press conference this afternoon Obama announced his next move will be to throw a left hook at the Taliban.
03:31 PM on 02/02/2012
Then so be it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Guy Fratianni
my micro has gone bio
03:16 PM on 02/02/2012
Did that right after the Russians left and they buried the Russians in debt. . We taught and trained them
02:31 PM on 02/02/2012
Good news for our Troops but don't expect a pat on the back from the Afghan's for a job well done. Rule #1 in the history of the world: the occupied will eventually hate their occupiers whether the occupiers intentions are good, bad or justified. What is surprising is that the British, Russians and now American's always seem surprised to re-learn rule #1. Rule #2: he that has no expectations is never disappointed.
02:26 PM on 02/02/2012
Just what Karzi deserves. He has been in contact with the Taliban trying to make a deal that will keep him and the other reagheads in power. However, Pakistan and the Taliban have an agreement that when the U.S. leaves, the Taliban regain the government (Remember, Pakistan is the only government in the world that ever recognized the Taliban Government when they were in power).
01:55 PM on 02/02/2012
The tea party and extreme Christians are just as bad as the Taliban maybe the troops can protect us from them when they get back and we can have protection from the real enemy ....just saying.........
01:49 PM on 02/02/2012
good. we can use the troops here in the usa to confiscate all guns after they are banned.
02:23 PM on 02/02/2012
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah (burp) Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
starchildjg24
Balance, Logic and Humor Rule
03:08 PM on 02/02/2012
Who has talked about banning guns, except in the fervent imagination of right wing nuts.
03:23 PM on 02/02/2012
stop the killing. the rednecks who feel the need to arm themselves and kill innocent animals need to be disarmed. they spread their weapons accross the usa like a disease.