Washington says mulling total exit after 2014 PHOTO: REUTERS/FILE
The White House said a day earlier it was considering the so-called "zero option" of a complete pullout - despite earlier recommendations from the top military commander in Afghanistan to keep soldiers there to help the government.
That option and the angry reaction from Afghan officials are likely to dominate talks between US President Barack Obama and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai in Washington on Friday.
The meeting was already likely to be tense, given ongoing strains in their relationship over the war.
"If Americans pull out all of their troops without a plan, the civil war of the 1990s would repeat itself," said Naeem Lalai, an outspoken lawmaker from volatile Kandahar province, the birthplace of the Taliban.
"It (full withdrawal) will pave the way for the Taliban to take over militarily," Lalai told Reuters.
When the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 after a decade-long war, financial aid dried up and the Afghan communist government collapsed, leading to infighting between warlords. A civil war paved the way for the Taliban's rise to power.
The United States has about 68,000 troops there and that number was already expected to reduce sharply ahead of Dec. 31 2014 - the official end of the Nato-led combat mission in the country.
Nato and its partners are racing against the clock to train up Afghanistan's 350,000-strong security forces though questions remain over how they well they will be able to tackle insurgents in the face of intensifying violence.
Many leading Afghan officials had assumed some US troops would stay.
"If American forces leave Afghanistan without properly training the Afghan security forces, and equipping them, it would be a disaster," said influential member of parliament Mirwais Yasini.
Member of parliament Shukria Barekzai said a total withdrawal after 2014 would be equivalent to the United States "accepting defeat".
The Taliban said it was still considering whether to respond to the White House statement when contacted by Reuters on Wednesday.
"It's very speculative and we are not commenting for now," said its spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid.
On Saturday the group reiterated its call for the immediate removal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan.
US Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said the complete withdrawal was "an option that we would consider" on Tuesday.
He made clear that a decision on post-2014 troop levels is not expected for months and will be made based on two US security objectives in Afghanistan - denying a safe haven to al Qaeda and ensuring Afghan forces are trained and equipped so that they, and not foreign forces, can secure the nation.
Washington officials have privately said the White House is seeking a post-2014 presence of between 3,000 and 9,000 troops, which is significantly less than the 6,000 to 15,000 number given by the top commander, US General John Allen.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@G. Din: Well, I did not elaborate other reasons for withdrawal, however let me put me put you wiser that Obama had asked Karzai to grant legal immunity to US troops against prosecution in Afghan courts post 2014 which the latter agreed to reciprocate during his recent visit to US provided Americans agree to station adequate number of troops, air-force cover, drones etc. So, that rules out your argument in Afghanistan case but the main reasons for complete US withdrawal is that 60 percent of Americans want the same as US troops have suffered 2000 casualities and tens of thousands maimed, 500 billion dollars gone down the drain without much achievement and more than ten years have passed and public sentiment is against stationing of troops any longer. Notwithstanding above, US might still station around ten thousand service personnel in Afghanistan post 2014 depending upon the situation in the country.
@Enlightened: "Americans do not want to risk their remaining service personnel getting killed after 2014 ... If you are so "enlightened" then you ought to be able to reason, why there would be "any" American causalities at all when they would not be fighting battles. America incidentally does not want to leave Afghanistan without any American personnel. This option is being considered only in case Afghanistan does not sign an agreement which would exempt Americans from any legal action in their courts! This came up in Iraq, too and Americans decided to leave because Iraq did not give any such guarantee.
It's just a negotiations tactic, Americans are not stupid to leave the region where they have invested trillion dollars and thousands of American lives. Let alone the taboo of being defeated by the Taliban.
What will happen to the minerals then?
Americans do not want to risk their remaining service personnel getting killed after 2014 knowing fully well that Afghan army is incompetent to fight Taliban and half of them might even join the latter with their arms and ammunition.