Charles Dharapak/AP
President Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai shake hands after making statements before signing a strategic partnership agreement at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, last night.

Obama's agreement with Karzai in Afghanistan short on specifics

In a move that both signals the close of the Afghan war and extends the US commitment here until at least 2024, President Obama visited Kabul to sign a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan.

In a move that reaffirms the US commitment here until at least 2024, President Obama came to Afghanistan to sign a strategic partnership agreement last night.  

While pledging that the US will support the Afghan military after 2014, when Afghan forces take full responsibility of the country, and continue providing financial support for development, the new agreement avoided specifics.

The lack of specificity is a point of concern for a number of Afghans.

“There is no concrete financial commitment from the United States for our Afghan national security force’s budget,” says Waliullah Rahmani, executive director of the Kabul Center for Strategic Studies. “If we don’t have good financial support for our security forces from our international friends, such as the United States, [our government and military] will not be in a position to survive. This is a question of survival for our Afghan national security forces.”

Both Mr. Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai said they wanted to sign the strategic partnership agreement ahead of NATO’s summit in Chicago on May 20 in order to better address specific issues, such as how much money the US will contribute to Afghan security forces and development, the exact role of any US forces that remain here after 2014, and what will happen to US bases.

The current partnership agreement does make clear that the US will not maintain permanent bases in Afghanistan. However, it stipulates that “Afghanistan shall provide US forces continued access to and use of Afghan facilities through 2014, and beyond as may be agreed in the Bilateral Security Agreement.”

If US bases do remain after 2014, the troops stationed there will most likely be engaged in training Afghan forces and combating Al Qaeda, but the exact nature of their activities will be determined in the security agreement they’ll begin to talk about in Chicago.

The current agreement prohibits the US from using any bases here as a “launching point for attacks against other countries.” With Iran and Pakistan flanking Afghanistan, interpretation of the clause may be debated.

The US Navy SEAL team that killed Osama bin Laden flew into Pakistan from a US base in Afghanistan, a critical part of the operation. If the US wants to conduct similar operations against terrorists based in Pakistan in the future, the clause “against other countries” might provide an opening if “terrorists” across the border are interpreted to constitute individuals, not a nation.

Among many Afghans there is relief that the US has committed to staying in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Concerns about regional interference in Afghan politics are pervasive and many hope that the American presence will serve as a deterrent.

“The most important weakness of the international community over the past 10 years is that they were not serious about stopping the interference of Afghanistan’s neighbors here,” says Mahmoud Khan, a member of parliament from Kandahar. “America and the international community need to tell them to completely stop their interference in Afghanistan or empower Afghan security forces so they can defend their own country and serve as a warning to our neighbors that if they interfere they will face a huge response.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Obama's agreement with Karzai in Afghanistan short on specifics
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today