Nato leaders are meeting in Chicago to endorse plans to hand over command of combat operations in Afghanistan by the middle of next year – as President Obama declares the war is effectively over.
There is a deadline – pulling out most foreign troops by the end of 2014 – and a timetable for getting there. Now all Nato leaders need to do is agree on a strategy for a gradual exit from Afghanistan. It is not simply a question of forging a political deal between countries under serious domestic pressure to bring their forces home, but pulling off the huge logistical challenge of moving a multi-national army and its equipment thousands of miles.
President Obama insisted the 28 countries were acting in concert: “Just as we’ve sacrificed together for our common security, we will stand together, united, in our determination to complete this mission,” he said. That is despite a pledge from the new French leader, Francois Hollande, to pull out French forces two years earlier than the US timetable.
But it is the sheer logistical challenge that is proving hardest to resolve. The operation has been hugely complicated by America’s row with Pakistan over key supply routes, which Islamabad closed down in November after 24 of its soldiers were killed in a mistaken US airstrike. 40 per cent of Nato supplies used the routes, and according to Senator Claire McKaskill, using alternate ones has cost the US around $38m every month.
The Afghan war, as we understand it, is over. President Obama
However, Mr Hollande has agreed to remain part of the ISAF operation, albeit in some kind of non-combat role: according to America’s top commander in Afghanistan, General Allen, that is likely to mean help with the training and mentoring of Afghan forces as they prepare to take control of the mission. Nato Secretary General Anders Rasmussen has voiced his confidence that there will be no bailing out: “There will be no rush for the exits,” he said.
In April, the Pakistan government declared it wanted an unconditional apology from America over the deaths, along with a cessation of all drone attacks and all transport of arms and ammunition through Pakistan, but there is no sign that the United States is prepared to give any ground, beyond expressing its “deepest condolences”.
That is why, despite a last-minute invitation to Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zadari to attend the Chicago summit, a deal to reopen those supply routes appears to have fallen apart. President Obama has said he will not meet Zadari without an agreement, although the Pakistani leader did meet Hillary Clinton on Sunday for lengthy talks.
The United States has managed to find alternative routes through Russia, and is seeking a framework agreement with Uzbekistan, a country widely criticised for its record on human rights. But the Pentagon has admitted that without being able to travel through Pakistan, the withdrawal will be “significantly” more difficult, and the entire timetable could even be delayed.
Rakia Zakaria, the director of Amnesty USA, wrote this week that there were real concerns in Pakistan about becoming further bogged down in the conflict, by allowing the routes to reopen: “What supplies a war becomes part of a war,” he said. Before the closure, Nato paid Pakistan around $250 per truck to allow them through. If they do reopen, that price will soar as high as $5,000 – an amount that Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has indicated the US is “not likely” to pay out.
Huge additional costs are hardly something any of the combat-fatigued Nato countries want to bear. The US has estimated it will cost more than $4bn to maintain the new Afghan security force after 2014, and wants allies to help share the burden. Britain has already promised to contribute $100m a year. France is being asked to chip in twice that amount.
The delicate negotiation underlines the considerable political risk facing President Obama, at a time when he is fighting to be re-elected. 23,000 US troops will return this summer, but that still leaves far greater numbers in Afghanistan than when Obama took office in 2009. And he is facing consistent criticism from the Republicans that imposing his timetable for withdrawal has put him at odds with his military commanders.
His presidential rival Mitt Romney accused him of being misguided and naive. “Why in the world do you go to the people that you’re fighting with and tell them the date you’re pulling out your troops? It makes absolutely no sense”, he said. “His naivete is putting in jeopardy the mission of the United States of America and our commitments to freedom.”
But General Allen has insisted the military are completely behind the president’s plan and fully prepared to carry it out. White House officials, meanwhile, have made it clear they have no intention of changing the timetable, no matter how things play out on the ground. “The Afghan war, as we understand it, is over,” Obama said, which is about as unequivocal as things get.
The main goal, then, for Nato, is to make that happen: drawing the line under a draining and highly unpopular war, and bringing tens of thousands of troops out safely, along with their equipment, all without breaking the budget. As yet the row with Pakistan is overshadowing efforts to achieve just that. But military chiefs are confident, at least, that an agreement will be achieved. Whether it takes days or weeks, there is surely too much at stake for failure to be an option.
Felicity Spector writes about US affairs for Channel 4 News