- House passes VA reform compromise
- Obama admin to blame for HealthCare.gov woes, $840M cost: GAO
- Al Gore’s climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Army’s 3-D printed bombs will create ‘a whole new universe’ of deadly capabilities
- Hamas calls on Hezbollah to join in fight against Israel
- Senators to FIFA, others: Don’t reward Putin with the World Cup in 2018
- U.S. condemns Israeli shelling of shelter in Gaza
- Obamacare shoots premiums up by 88 percent in California
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Obama to Republicans: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time’
Obama requesting help to pay for Afghan army
Question of the Day
WASHINGTON (AP) — Mapping the way out of an unpopular war, the United States and NATO are trying to build an Afghan army that can defend the country after 130,000 international troops pull out. The alliance’s plans for arm’s-length support for Afghanistan will be a central focus of the summit President Obama is hosting Sunday and Monday in Chicago.
The problem with the exit strategy is that someone has to pay for that army in an era of austerity budgets and defense cutbacks.
The problem for the United States is how to avoid getting stuck with the check for $4.1 billion a year.
“This has to be a multilateral funding effort,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said. “We think there should be contributions from other countries.”
That’s partly why so many non-NATO nations are getting invitations to the summit. About 60 countries and organizations are expected to be represented, including nations such as Japan that are far removed from the trans-Atlantic defense pact’s home ground.
More than 20 nations already have agreed to help fund the Afghan army, and more are expected to announce their commitments at the Chicago summit. U.S. and other NATO leaders claim that fundraising is on track, although the totals publicly announced so far are small.
A senior Obama administration official said the U.S. and its partners would seek to set targets at the summit for the size and scope of the Afghan security forces after 2014, when foreign forces pull out. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to preview the upcoming summit, would not detail pledges expected in Chicago.
That force is now projected to be smaller — and cheaper — than NATO had planned only a year ago. The decision to trim the goal for an Afghan force from about 350,000 to roughly 230,000 was driven more by economic reality than a shift in thinking about Afghanistan‘s security needs after 2014, U.S. military officials and NATO diplomats said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning. The larger force was projected to cost $7 billion a year.
Mr. Obama is unlikely to say so, but outside estimates of the U.S. share of the bill for Afghan defense after 2014 range from a quarter to well more than half the total bill. The U.S. also will be on the hook for other support to Afghanistan, but the amount is unclear. The United States is the richest and best-equipped nation in the NATO alliance and long Afghanistan‘s largest patron.
Mr. Obama signed a pledge with Afghan President Hamid Karzai this month that would obligate the U.S. for a decade. Several other nations have signed similar long-term deals, and NATO is to sign one with Afghanistan at the Chicago meeting. The agreements cover a range of assistance to Afghanistan, but underwriting the military is the largest line item.
The summit in Mr. Obama’s adopted hometown is not a pledging conference, but it will be a platform for Mr. Obama to invite other nations to step up.
Follow-up conferences are planned for Kabul and Tokyo later this year, where specific pledges are expected.
U.S. officials have had their tin cups out for months. Marc Grossman, the top State Department official for Afghanistan, recently hit up European nations, and others are lobbying Russia and Central Asian and Asian nations. U.S. officials are asking for pledges to sustain an Afghan force of roughly 230,000 during the first three years after the NATO-led international force departs.
The argument is fairly straightforward: Even $4 billion a year to prop up the Afghan military is cheaper than the cost of maintaining a foreign army in Afghanistan, and a lot easier for war-weary publics to swallow.
Some of the requests appear to be largely symbolic. For example, U.S. officials asked some of Afghanistan‘s neighbors for initial pledges of about $5 million annually, said Richard Weitz of the Hudson Institute in Washington.
TWT Video Picks
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- Al Gore's climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- HURT: Impeaching Obama is a losing strategy for the GOP
- MSNBC's Ronan Farrow questions lack of racial diversity in emoji characters
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Obama vows veto of House border bill
- ISTOOK: Get ready for super-priced burgers due to NLRB decree
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world