Panetta (US) confirms it: we're off in 2013
(BRUXELLES2) Retirement has sounded... The Associated Press agents did not wait for the landing in Brussels to release the news. On the plane to the NATO ministerial meeting, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained that the combat mission in Afghanistan would end in 2013. "The final phase of transition of parts of the country between NATO and the Afghan government should begin in mid-2013". This will make it possible to transform the combat mission into a training mission. between mid-2013 and the end of the year”, he explained. However, this does not mean that all US troops will leave Afghan soil in 2014. On the contrary, it will remain “ a strong presence, to assist the Afghan army, and provide training.
Some differences with the Frenchies
This is moreover one of the points of divergence between the French and the Americans: between a modest presidency after 2013 - "a few hundred men" specified President Sarkozy -, and a "strong" presence for the latter who do not give number - but we can probably talk about several thousand, even a few tens of thousands, there is a margin. The United States currently has 91.000 soldiers in ISAF, the NATO force, a figure which should be reduced to 68.000 by September. And it's not the only one apparently. And Panetta has every intention of explaining it, he explained to our American colleagues, " with the French delegation " upon arrival. The Americans thus seem to have little appreciated that the French president grilled the politeness of the announcement of the fateful date of 2013. Panetta thus confided in wanting to "bring (France) back into the Lisbon strategy, in order to be able to move forward together" .
The one who fired first
On January 27, after an interview with the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, Nicolas Sarkozy had, in fact, announced that he wanted to " ask NATO to reflect on a full takeover of NATO combat missions by the Afghan army during 2013 ". In the process, without even waiting for the result of this request, he declared that he had " plan the return of all of our combat forces by the end of 2013 ". Which means a (small) acceleration of the soldiers' return schedule. 400 have already returned to France in 2011. And, in 2012, 1000 additional soldiers will leave Afghanistan (instead of 600 as planned). And Kapisa - a region held by the French - will fall under Afghan command next March.
Commentary: the end of a dogma
Even if at NATO headquarters, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Secretary General of the Alliance prides himself on demonstrating that nothing has changed, that " the roadmap established at the Lisbon summit was maintained and that all of this was already largely planned... the American declaration is a strong signal after that given by the French. A dogma has just jumped. No need to play on words, reinterpret paragraphs, finasser... The date of 2014, chosen by all as the ultimate date for withdrawal, is no longer 2014, it's 2013, or even mid-2013. The calendar is moved forward a year. The Italians, Germans and even the British will thus be able to fold the "gauls", faster than expected, to the delight of the chiefs of defense, and their treasurers, whose purses are empty. But beware ! Who says "non-combat troops" does not say "zero risk" - due to remote-controlled improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or suicide attacks - and does not say "zero budget". It's a safe bet that many countries are reluctant to make a "strong" contribution of non-combatant troops to the "2014" window, as the Americans demand.
Panetta on the plane that takes him to Brussels confides (credit: DOD / US Secretary of State for Defence)
This announcement above all points out that what France lacks is an educational explanation effort so as not to pass for the breaker of the cohesion of the coalition or the one who jeopardizes the mission of the ISAF on an operational level. Cognitive bias that makes us look like ugly ducklings to the Americans, despite the efforts to reintegrate almost all NATO structures or despite the “lead” taken in the Libyan affair.
Because frankly between the transition from a “combat” posture to a “security force assistance” posture made of “advise and assist” by the American forces, the difference is quite minimal with President Sarkozy's announcements to withdraw the combat forces (expression moreover very unfortunate as to the reality and the dangerousness of the missions carried out) and to leave “a few hundred” advisers with the Afghan armed forces.
Moreover, if the difference in the number of troops remaining in absolute value is real, in relative value, it is almost the same. Indeed, we are talking about a threshold of around 25/30 US trainers, ie a quarter of their maximum presence in mid-000 (around 2011). France with its “several hundred (dixit Sarkozy) is not far either compared to its maximum level of approximately 100.000 men in Afghanistan…
There is therefore a bit of hypocrisy (even jealousy) on Panetta's part, and on our side a bit of awkwardness in not explaining enough in order to finally succeed, what we have been trying for ages: to be a independent ally not having us dictate our national agenda on Afghanistan…
And not all Americans hold a grudge: see this vision http://blog.gmfus.org/2012/02/the-french-departure-from-afghanistan-is-not-a-deal-breaker/
For yourself