iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

NATO Summit Chicago: World Leaders Discuss End Of Afghanistan War

By BEN FELLER and ANNE GEARAN 05/21/12 08:27 PM ET AP

CHICAGO — President Barack Obama and leaders around the globe locked in place an Afghanistan exit path Monday that will still keep their troops fighting and dying there for two more years, acknowledging there never will be point at which they can say, "This is all done. This is perfect."

Obama, presiding over a 50-nation war coalition summit in his hometown, summed up the mood by saying the Afghanistan that will be left behind will be stable enough for them to depart – essentially good enough after a decade of war_ but still loaded with troubles.

The war that began in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will finish at the end of 2014.

"I don't think there's ever going to be an optimal point where we say, `This is all done. This is perfect. This is just the way we wanted it,'" Obama said as the NATO summit closed. "This is a process, and it's sometimes a messy process."

Obama never spoke of victory.

Afghan forces for the first time will take over the lead of the combat mission by the middle of 2013, a milestone moment in a long, costly transition of control. Even in a backup role, U.S. forces and all the rest will face surprise attacks and bombings until the war's end.

Wary of creating a vacuum in a volatile region, the nations also promised a lasting partnership with Afghanistan, meaning many years of contributing tax dollars, personnel and political capital after the end of their soldiers' combat.

The United States has already cut its own deal with Afghanistan along those lines, including a provision that allows U.S. military trainers and special forces to remain in Afghanistan after the war closes.

In an escalating election-year environment, Obama was as at the center of the action in Chicago, beaming and boasting about the city's performance in hosting the event. Noisy protesters loaded the city's streets at times, which Obama called just the kind of free expression NATO defends.

Tensions with Pakistan undermined some of the choreographed unity. Pakistan has not yet agreed to end the closure of key transit routes into Afghanistan – retaliation for American airstrikes that accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers months ago – and the issue hung over the summit.

Obama had no official talks with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, although the two chatted briefly. Obama spoke of progress on the standoff but he added: "I don't want to paper over real challenges there. There's no doubt that there have been tensions."

On Afghanistan, led by Obama, the partners are in essence staying the course. They stuck with a timeline long established and underscored that there will be no second-guessing the decision about when to leave.

Since 2010, they have been planning to finish the war at the end of 2014, even as moves by nations such as France to pull combat troops out early have tested the strength of the coalition. The shift to have Afghan forces take the lead of the combat mission next year has also been expected. Leaders presented it as a significant turning point in the war.

It will be "the moment when throughout Afghanistan people can look out and see their own troops and police stepping up to the challenge," said the NATO chief, Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

What the world is poised to leave behind is an Afghanistan still riddled with poverty, corruption and political instability.

Yet, out of money and patience, the U.S.-led partnership said it is confident Afghanistan will be stable and prepared enough to at least be able to protect itself – and, in turn, prevent its territory from becoming a launching pad for international terrorism.

Questioned about what will happen if Afghanistan eventually falls apart, Obama signaled there is no turning back. "I think that the timetable that we've established is a sound one, it is a responsible one. Are there risks involved in it? Absolutely."

British Prime Minister David Cameron said the leaders were "making a decisive and enduring commitment to the long-term future of Afghanistan. The message to the Afghan people is that we will not desert them. And the message to the insurgency is equally clear: You cannot win on the battlefield. You should stop fighting and start talking."

The political stakes are high for the U.S. president, who will go before voters in November with tens of thousands more troops in Afghanistan than when we took office. His emphasis will remain that he is methodically winding down the war after closing out the one in Iraq; U.S. voters desperate for better economic times have long stopped approving of the war mission.

NATO said it will keep providing "long-term political and practical support" to Afghanistan after 2014 but added: "This will not be a combat mission."

Despite the size of the coalition, the war remains a United States-dominated effort.

The U.S. has 90,000 of the 130,000 foreign forces in the war. Obama has pledged to shrink that to 68,000 by the end of September but has offered no details on the withdrawal pace after that, other than to say it will be gradual.

The fighting alliance called negotiation the key to ending the insurgency in Afghanistan, but avoided mentioning the Taliban by name. The insurgents walked away from U.S.-led talks in March, and urged the NATO nations to follow the lead of France in pledging to remove combat forces ahead of schedule.

The alliance agreed on a fundraising goal to underwrite the Afghan armed forces after the international fighting forces depart.

The force of about 230,000 would cost about $4.1 billion annually – the bulk of it paid by the United States and countries that have not been part of the fighting force.

U.S. and British officials said during the summit that pledges total about $1 billion a year so far and that fundraising is on track to make up the rest. French President Francois Hollande said the U.S. had requested a little less than $200 million but was non-committal, saying France was "not bound by what Germany or other countries might do."

___

Associated Press writer Julie Pace and Jamey Keaten contributed to this report.

Loading Slideshow...
  • NATO family photo

    Leaders pose for the family photo at Soldier Field during the NATO Summit on May 20, 2012 in Chicago. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GettyImages)

  • Barack Obama, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Sali Berisha, David Cameron

    President Barack Obama, center, and Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, point out Lake Michigan for British Prime Minister David Cameron, far right, during the group photo of NATO leaders at Soldier Field at the NATO Summit in Chicago, Sunday, May 20, 2012. Also on the riser is Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha, far left. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

  • Hillary Rodham Clinton, David Cameron, William Hague

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to British Prime Minister David Cameron, left, and British Foreign Secretary William Hague during the 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago, Monday, May 21, 2012. (AP Photo/Philippe Wojazer, Pool)

  • Barack Obama, David Cameron

    President Barack Obama talks with British Prime Minister David Cameron before a meeting on Afghanistan during the NATO Summit, Monday, May 21, 2012, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

  • Angela Merkel, Julia Gillard, Johanna Siguroardottir

    From left, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and Iceland's Prime Minister Johanna Siguroardottir talk during the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) meeting on Afghanistan at the NATO Summit in Chicago, Monday, May 21, 2012. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

  • World Leaders Take Part In NATO Summit In Chicago

    CHICAGO, IL - MAY 21: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Heydar combs his hair as he arrives for a meeting on Afghanistan during the NATO Summit at McCormick Place on May 21, 2012, in Chicago, Illinois. As sixty heads of state converge for the two day summit that will address the situation in Afghanistan among other global defense issues, thousands of demonstrators have taken the streets to protest. (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

  • German Chancellor Angela Merkel, right, and Greek Foreign Minister Petros Molyviatis, center, arrive to pose for a photo at the 2012 NATO Summit at McCormick Place, May 20, 2012, in Chicago. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GettyImages)

  • Hamid Karzai

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai, second right, chats with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, left, as Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rasoul, 2nd left, and Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, right, look on during the 2012 NATO Summit May 21, 2012, at the McCormick Place convention center in Chicago. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GettyImages)

  • Francois Hollande, Anders Fogh Rasmussen

    French President Francois Hollande, right, meets with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen during a bilateral meeting at the Radisson Blu Hotel before attending the opening session of the NATO Summit in Chicago, Sunday, May 20, 2012. (AP Photo/Yoan Valat, Pool)

  • Hamid Karzai

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai attends a working session on the second day of the 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago, Monday, May 21, 2012. (AP Photo/Philippe Wojazer, Pool)


FOLLOW WORLD

CHICAGO — President Barack Obama and leaders around the globe locked in place an Afghanistan exit path Monday that will still keep their troops fighting and dying there for two more years, ackno...
CHICAGO — President Barack Obama and leaders around the globe locked in place an Afghanistan exit path Monday that will still keep their troops fighting and dying there for two more years, ackno...
Filed by Eline Gordts  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,334
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (29 total)
10:57 PM on 05/22/2012
Of course you realize that if you end involvement in Afghanistan the Dubai real estate market will collapse.
08:32 PM on 05/22/2012
I don't think there's ever going to be an optimal point where we say, `This is all done. This is perfect. This is just the way we wanted it,'" Obama said as the NATO summit closed. "This is a process, and it's sometimes a messy process."
You think? If the politicians would let the military do what they are trained to do this war would be over with by now. Tell the PC crowd to sit back and shut up, good thing the contemporary environment didn't exist in the 40's, America and its allies would have never won WWII.
06:45 PM on 05/22/2012
it has cost so much, we should give the entire areas involved to israel, then we could make slaves of whomsoever desides to disagree they can turn to christianity learn the american way-in 400 years they will realise they are better off being up to date
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:17 PM on 05/22/2012
Where is Hillary? the flying women, politician.
What is she up to?
06:11 PM on 05/22/2012
The U.S. went into Afghanistan NOT to make war against Afghanistan and defeat that nation, but to find and flush out Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. As the Taliban supports Al Qaeda, they became a secondary target.

It appears that Al Qaeda is out of Afghanistan and whatever remains of that divion of Al Qaeda is wounded, and Osama is dead. There appears to be an option for improvement in Afghanistan, and for a government which may curb the influence of the Taliban.

Karzai has asked for more time and longer support and is receiving it. I am not happy about it, because my grandson his signed up for another two years there. I want him home. Nevertheless, if no victory, certainly not a defeat either. Resources have been discovered in Afghanistan, which may get that nation out of their main prouction, i.e. poppies, and into another line of business.
05:22 PM on 05/22/2012
War in Afghanistan Might have been over several years ago if Bush/Cheney hadn't invaded Iraq and abandoned the Afghanis to the Taliban. By the way, the 2014 pull out date was set by George W.
12:58 PM on 05/23/2012
Bush/Cheney never gave dates for a troop pull out.
01:27 PM on 05/23/2012
Wrong! Do some research.
Rexter
Question everything.
01:34 PM on 05/22/2012
Another welfare nation on the U.S. dole. Obama can't give away enough here in the states so he is using the blank check of the state department to continue his generosity with our money overseas. What is up with this guy, does he get all giddy spending other peoples money?

This $4 billion a year for 10 years going to Karzai could feed and shelter millions of americans, but who cares about them, screw'em, let them eat cake.
01:59 PM on 05/22/2012
theres no cake to eat, he gave that away too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:18 PM on 05/22/2012
Maybe it is his own money, inheritance?
01:21 PM on 05/22/2012
Why do we pay more money to these nations? Can anyone answer this question for me? The particular statement within this article: Wary of creating a vacuum in a volatile region, the nations also promised a lasting partnership with Afghanistan, meaning many years of contributing tax dollars, personnel and political capital after the end of their soldiers' combat.

So I am rather confused about Obama signing a treaty with Karzai to keep troops in his country until 2024. Has Nato negated that treat?

Also, I would like to know if any country gives us money....does anyone know the answer to this question I have been asking.

As mentioned before, why oh why are we continuing to spend billions of dollars to other countries, when we do not have it. This is crazy!
08:54 PM on 05/22/2012
hmmm why do we invest in a country that for the last ten years we've laid to waste looking for one person? hmmm what a query. why would we try to support a government in a nation still being laid waste by our country? especially when the animosity of the citizens of that country is directed at both us (the occupiers and usurpers) and the government in place (i.e. the internal powers working in accord with the occupying force).

are you really confused or did you follow the ostrich and shove your head in the sand?

do other countries give us money?? really? are you being serious?
the first question is how many other countries have escalated conflict between warring factions in our country, how many countries have violated treaties and overthrown democratically elected governments in our country? how many other countries have used their intelligence agency's to incite military coup in our country?

the answer to your narrow minded question is yes other countries do give us money, largely in the form of bonds, and purchasing our debt.

the larger answer is wake up or hide yourself away from the world in your shame.
09:32 PM on 05/23/2012
Lol....I wanted a good answer, a serious answer, not an insult!
02:29 PM on 05/24/2012
I asked a legitimate question and why are you questioning back?  It appears that without being straight and forthright in your reply, that you are saying somewhere between the lines that we are paying for our protection...  So where is your source that our country receives money in the form of bonds and what countries are they?  And then you have a couple of insults for me... lol  You have to be a Democrat! Ted Poe a representative from Texas, a Republican says we give money to at least 150 countries.   He also said:  Maybe it’s time to reconsider our foreign aid that we send to countries throughout the world," Poe said in the floor speech, which has attracted attention in conservative circles on the Internet. "There are about 192 foreign countries in the world, … and we give foreign aid to over 150 of them."  Poe proceeded to name some examples of countries where many Americans might be uncomfortable sending taxpayer money, including Egypt, Pakistan, Russia and China. But two of the nation’s in Poe’s speech caught our eye -- Venezuela and Cuba.  We give $20 million to Cuba. Why do we give money to Cuba? Americans can’t even go to Cuba. It’s off-limits. It’s a communist country. But we’re dumping money over there."http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/23/ted-poe/ted-poe-decries-us-aid-venezuela-cuba/ Would someone answer the question who can give a forthright, straight reply, without insult.  I have always heard that people who can't answer a question insult you...lol, one must have the skin as thick as an elephant and a heart
01:07 PM on 05/22/2012
Just as in Vietnam, we are now looking at the end of a long, costly war and wondering what it was for. Has the cost in lives and money bought us greater security or international goodwill? I understand the desire to strike back at those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, but our national policy needs to be formulated by people can see beyond simple vengeance.
05:32 PM on 05/22/2012
Yes it has brought us greater security.
It is beyond simple vengeance, they took out the Taliban government that harboured terrorists and have continued to seek them and the Al Queda sympathizers out to help eliminate the threat. Basically, when you are the top dog you cannot allow anyone to kick you without retalliation or more will try it. Ants are very small and pretty insignificant by themselves, however when the whole nest attack they can take down anything.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nathan0316
TrueBlueTory Age quod agis
12:37 PM on 05/22/2012
We should have pulled our troops out 2 years ago, certainly not 2 years from now. There's no way we can win, public opinion is dead set against this pointless war and every soldier brought home in a coffin is a betrayal of our armed forces.
05:39 PM on 05/22/2012
On a level I totally agree. The '14 pull out was set by George W. Had we not decided to invade Iraq might might have been out 4 or 5 years ago. Whenever, Afghanistan is a lost cause.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:20 PM on 05/22/2012
it was lost the same day America came in.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JubalTHarshaw
Just Passing Through...
12:30 PM on 05/22/2012
“The United States has already cut its own deal with Afghanistan along those lines, including a provision that allows U.S. military trainers and special forces to remain in Afghanistan after the war closes.”

What part of “end the war and bring the troops home” is so hard for those in Washington to understand? We aren’t going to “win” a war here. Afghanistan will return to tribal, feudal violence and it will continue to produce and export the drugs that we allowed to be grown under our protection. Not another American life should be put at risk in this third world excuse for a nation.
12:16 PM on 05/22/2012
So we are going to stop fighting in 2014 but will keep troops there for another 10 years or so? Maybe we can have all of our troops stay in one big tall barracks like in Beirut,that worked out. President Obama really is about equality.He is going to give my 10yr old son the same chance to be injured in Afghanistan as his 26yr old cousin got.
11:43 AM on 05/22/2012
I guess we are in good hands:
As part of the shield, President Obama has instructed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to transfer operational control of a U.S. radar in Turkey to NATO, it said.

“The radar’s information, combined with the NATO command-and-control system, gives NATO missile defense commanders a comprehensive and real-time operational picture, enabling them to employ the available missile defense assets effectively.”
11:36 AM on 05/22/2012
WHY DOES AMERICA HAVE TO FOOT THE BILLS , WHY CANT THEY SELL OIL AND MINERALS AND PAY FOR THE WAR THEIRSELF. THIS COUNTRY IS RICH IN OIL AND MINERALS, PAY YOUR OWN BILLS AND QUIT DRAINING AMERICA. QUIT DRAGGING EVERYBODY INTO YOUR WAR, A WAR THATS BEEN GOING ON HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
STOP CAUSING THE DEATHS OF AMERICANS, WHEN WE DONT EVEN BELONG THERE.
04:09 PM on 05/22/2012
Never going to be that simple with ALL politico's & MIC corporations on -the- dole!!

You do know that PLUTOCRACY is NEVER for greater-good. Right?
08:59 PM on 05/22/2012
i really don't remember anyone except americans asking america to go in and start this war and spend more and more money, haliburton seemed pretty fond of the idea, and even more fond of it's contracts awarded by the u.s. government......

WHY DO MY COUNTRY MEN HAVE TO ASK POINTLESS QUESTIONS MAKE BASELESS STATEMENTS WHEN REALITY HASNT DEPARTED FROM FULL VIEW?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HP5572
To have an open mind, empty pre conceived notions
11:35 AM on 05/22/2012
And why do we keep telling the enemy our strategy? You can't even win a football game telling your opponent your strategy.
12:44 PM on 05/22/2012
It's called a verbal deterrent!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
americanrevolution
Can't the left and right be wrong?
02:01 PM on 05/22/2012
Or just too much propaganda!!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HP5572
To have an open mind, empty pre conceived notions
02:07 PM on 05/22/2012
I served in Iraq. If you tell the enemy you are committed to finish what ever needs to be done, it is a deterrent. When you tell the enemy your timeline and strategy it gets soldiers killed.