“KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The U.S. and Afghanistan reached a deal Sunday on a long-delayed strategic partnership agreement that ensures Americans will provide military and financial support to the Afghan people for at least a decade beyond 2014, the deadline for most foreign forces to withdraw.”
By “Afghan people” is meant war lords. Other Afghan people are militarily supported with bullets in the head and financially supported with jobs working for the resistance to the U.S. and NATO forces, but that’s about it.
“The pact is key to the U.S. exit strategy in Afghanistan because it establishes guidelines for any American forces who remain after the withdrawal deadline and for financial help to the impoverished country and its security forces.”
So, an agreement to stay for 10 years is necessary for leaving. This is explained immediately below:
“For the Afghan government, it is also a way to show its people that their U.S. allies are not just walking away.”
In other words, this is leaving without, you know, leaving. It’s important for the Afghan government to show “its people” this so that they understand that it may take a month to overthrow the Afghan government rather than the week they were counting on.
“‘Our goal is an enduring partnership with Afghanistan that strengthens Afghan sovereignty, stability and prosperity and that contributes to our shared goal of defeating al-Qaida and its extremist affiliates,’ said U.S. Embassy spokesman Gavin Sundwall. ‘We believe this agreement supports that goal.'”
Strengthening sovereignty through “partnership” is a complex notion that earthlings have not yet mastered, but strengthening stability and prosperity is best understood by looking at what Afghanistan has become during the past 10 years.
“After 10 years of U.S.-led war, insurgents linked to the Taliban and al-Qaida remain a threat and as recently as a week ago launched a large-scale attack on the capital Kabul and three other cities.”
By Taliban and al-Qaida is meant Taliban or al-Qaida, and by Taliban or al-Qaida is meant Taliban. By “remain a threat” is meant: continue to be empowered and funded by the U.S. and NATO occupation.
“The draft agreement was worked out and initialed by Afghan National Security Adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It must still be reviewed in both countries and signed afterward by the Afghan and American presidents.”
Presumably they will try to swing this prior to the NATO meeting in Chicago on May 20th, which every person in the United States who does not appreciate mass-murder being carried out in their name should be ready to protest.
“U.S. forces have already started pulling out of Afghanistan, and the majority of combat troops are scheduled to depart by the end of 2014. But the U.S. is expected to maintain a large presence in the country for years after, including special forces, military trainers and government-assistance programs.”
By “started pulling out” is meant: begun reductions in the eventual direction of the level of troops that were in Afghanistan when Obama moved to Pennsylvania Avenue.
“The agreement is both an achievement and a relief for both sides, coming after months of turmoil that seemed to put the entire alliance in peril. It shows that the two governments are still committed to working together and capable of coming to some sort of understanding.”
The sides here are governments, whose emotional state is of great interest to Martians and other high-level beings. The rest is beyond hope, I’m afraid:
“‘The document finalized today provides a strong foundation for the security of Afghanistan, the region and the world and is a document for the development of the region,’ Spanta said in a statement issued by President Hamid Karzai’s office.
“Neither Afghan nor U.S. officials would comment on the details of the agreement. A Western official familiar with the negotiations said it outlines a strategic partnership for 10 years beyond 2014.
“Reaching any agreement is likely to be seen as a success given more than a year and a half of negotiations during which the entire effort appeared in danger of falling apart multiple times.
“Since the beginning of the year, U.S.-Afghan relations have been strained by an Internet video of American Marines urinating on the corpses of presumed Taliban fighters, by Quran burnings at a U.S. base that sparked days of deadly protests and by the alleged killing spree by a U.S. soldier in a southern Afghan village.
“Tensions were further heightened by a spate of turncoat attacks by Afghan security forces on their international counterparts.
“White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said President Barack Obama expects to sign the document before a NATO summit in Chicago next month, meeting the deadline set by the two sides. Many had started to worry in recent weeks that Karzai and Obama would miss that goal as talks dragged on and Karzai continued to announce new demands for the document.
“Much of the disagreement was about how to handle activities that the Afghan government saw as threatening its sovereignty, in particular, night raids and the detention of Afghan citizens by international forces. Those two major issues were resolved earlier this year in separate memorandums of understanding.
“But closed-door talks continued for weeks after those side-deals were signed. And then as recently as last week, Karzai said that he wanted the agreement to include a dollar figure for funding for the Afghan security forces — a demand that would be hard for the Americans to sign off on given the need for congressional approval for funding. U.S. officials have said previously that they expected the document to address economic and development support for Afghanistan more generally.
“The final document is likely to be short on specifics. U.S. officials involved in the negotiations have said previously that the strategic partnership will provide a framework for future relations, but that details of how U.S. forces operate in the country will come in a later agreement.
“The initialing ceremony means that the text of the document is now locked in. But the countries will have to go through their own internal review processes, Sundwall said.
“‘For the United States, that will mean interagency review, consultation with Congress as appropriate and final review by the president,’ Sundwall said.
“In Afghanistan, the agreement will have to be approved by parliament. The Afghan foreign minister will brief Afghan lawmakers about the document Monday, the Afghan president’s statement said.”
Fun Fact: The United States used to have a Constitution that required that treaties be ratified by the Senate. And things like decades of war, while they never would have been tolerated at all or even imagined, would have been considered — had they been considered — to be treaties.