Learn well this phrase: "Joint Facilities." That's how Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy described the likely places in Afghanistan that will host residual troops after 2014, when the Afghans are supposed to take charge of security. And if you can figure out the difference between "joint facilities" and "permanent bases," please explain.
As teased last week by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, there's a U.S. delegation in Kabul this week to begin talks with the Afghan government about what a post-2014 U.S. presence in Afghanistan ought to look like.
Flournoy told a Senate panel on Tuesday morning that the Obama administration is out for an "enduring, long-term commitment to Afghanistan and the region," which she called an "important message to emphasize as we begin the transition process" to Afghan security control by 2014.
That doesn't necessarily mean a large U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan after 2014. But it does mean some U.S. troop presence, if the Afghans "request" it. (Raise your hand if you think the Afghans will make that decision totally free of U.S. influence.)
But Flournoy said that a "commitment to the success of the Afghans" means that the United States would be interested in "the use of joint facilities" for U.S. troops or officials in Afghanistan beyond 2014 -- not just for continued mentoring of the Afghan security forces, but for "joint counterterrorism" and other missions.
Not that Flournoy wants you to see that as a recipe for a permanent presence for U.S. forces in an unpopular war that's already nearly a decade old. "We do not seek any permanent bases in Afghanistan," Flournoy said. "We don't seek to have a presence that any other country in the region would see as a threat." So, it would be an enduring, long-term troop presence, but not a permanent one. Or, something?
Unclear as a post-2014 U.S. presence might be, Flournoy was offering the most robust explanation yet from any Obama administration official about what the United States' future in Afghanistan ought to hold.
But it also seemed to cut against the rationale offered by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the Afghanistan war who testified beside Flournoy, for beginning to draw down troop levels starting in July, as long promised by President Obama.
Bringing troop levels down "undercuts the narrative of the Taliban that we will be there forever" or "are determined to maintain a presence forever." At the same time, Petraeus said, an "enduring commitment of some form" is necessary to convince insurgence that "reconciliation, rather than continued fighting, should be the goal."
Sen. Susan Collins, a senior Republican on the panel, called that a "mixed message" from the Obama administration. "I think that's part of the confusion that we see reflected in the polls, about what exactly is our long-term strategy," Collins said.
Petraeus disagreed, saying it was important to "talk about getting the job done" and "talk about a responsible transition" at the same time. "I don't really see those as mutually exclusive strands of logic," Petraeus replied.
Two security analysts at the Center for a New American Security, Andrew Exum and former Afghanistan commander David Barno, recently proposed a post-2014 shift to a counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan. They identified Kabul and the huge airfield an hour away at Bagram as key staging grounds for counterterrorism operations, along with a smaller U.S. contingent in Kandahar, as well.
Neither Flournoy nor Petraeus spelled out a post-2014 mission with that specificity. But Flournoy said it was all but a dead certainty that the Afghans will "request" a long-term U.S. presence. She cut off a question about Afghans not asking the United States to stay as an "unlikely set of conditions." The Afghans "want our continued engagement and support over time."
It's worth noting that Flournoy is a top contender for succeeding Robert Gates as secretary of defense, and she co-founded the Center for a New American Security.
The Bush and Obama administrations predicated the Afghanistan war on the destruction of al-Qaeda, now across the border in Pakistan. Petraeus testified that there are "probably less than 100" al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan presently.
The leading tool for suppressing al-Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan is the CIA's drone strikes, as the Pakistani military has balked at invading its North Waziristan territory, a safe haven for al-Qaeda. That continued to frustrate senators, even as Petraeus assured, "the best way to influence Pakistan is through Afghanistan." Don't expect the Afghanistan war to end in 2014, then.
Photo: Spencer Ackerman
See Also:
