U.S. Afghan Security Deal
How important is it for the U.S.
to get a bilateral security agreement signed?
“In
my opinion the zero option should not be an option. Zero option means a civil
war in Afghanistan ,”
are the words of a Senior Pakistani Official.[1]
Zero option is what would happen if the U.S.
didn’t sign a bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan .
Not signing this deal may lead to a civil war in Afghanistan ,
but why should the United States
refrain from an Afghan civil war? Why is that our problem?
Let
me give you a little bit of background on this situation. The United
States keeps troops in Afghanistan
to help and support the Afghan military, government, and people. The main
interest of the United States
in doing this is keeping terrorists from taking over Afghanistan .
This bilateral security deal would keep U.S.
troops in Afghanistan .
However, Barack Obama has talked to Hamid Karzai (the president of Afghanistan )
on the telephone, and Obama told Karzai that since the United
States hasn’t seen signs of Karzai wanting
to sign the Afghan deal, that the Pentagon is drawing up plans to get U.S.
troops evacuated from Afghanistan
by the end of 2014.[2] The United
States and Afghanistan
have been at odds over this deal since at least November.[3]
 |
| Why won't Hamid Karzai sign this security deal? |
Now,
there is a council of elders in Afghanistan
called the loya jirga that is
sincerely rooted in Afghan culture. The loya
jirga have had a part in some of the most critical Afghan issues of the
past century. The loya jirga to Hamid
Karzai is similar to Congress to Obama or Parliament to the queen. However, there
are many drastic differences. The loya
jirga has much less power than Congress or Parliament, because they can
only recommend things to Hamid Karzai. They can’t really make any decisions for
Afghanistan
when a president is around. Also, this institution isn’t exceptionally
organized. The first modern time that the loya
jirga met was in 1747, when they chose Ahmad Shah Durrani as the leader of Afghanistan .
Many political leaders of Afghanistan
consider the loya jirga to be the
process of choosing an Afghan president, but after 1747, the first time that
they chose a president was in 1929. It’s very hard for the loya jirga to recommend anything to Karzai because their decisions
must be unanimous. If anyone in the council disagrees, they simply walk out.
When a more powerful person in the council walks out, many others follow them.
The
loya jirga has recommended that Hamid
Karzai sign this security deal to protect the people of Afghanistan ,
and this says a lot considering how hard it is for the council to recommend
something. However, Karzai still refuses to sign the deal, and Obama doesn’t
have much of an interest anymore for trying to get him to sign.
Obama’s
philosophy seems like a logical one, but, just like many of his other philosophies,
it isn’t. The United States
needs to put this deal in its best interest. Why? Fox News posed this question:
“If President Barack Obama were to decide to leave no military advisory force
in Afghanistan next year, would Afghan security unravel to the point of
enabling a civil war, a Taliban takeover and a return of al-Qaida in such
numbers as to pose a 9/11-type threat?”[4]
One
of the most horrendous events that has happened in the history of this great
nation is 9/11. No American can deny that. Do we want this to happen to us
again? Of course we don’t. It would do much harm to the people of this nation
if a bilateral security deal was not signed with Afghanistan ,
but it would also do much harm to the people of Afghanistan .
If the United States
doesn’t get this deal signed, then much blood will be shed in an Afghan Civil
War and Taliban takeover. The interest of Obama and the United
States in signing this deal is the lives of
millions in Afghanistan
and in this great nation. If the very lives of the people of the United
States are not important to Barack Obama,
then surely we have tyranny. Once we can obtain a government that values our
security and the lives of millions across the globe, then we will have liberty.
[1] Martinez,
Luis. “’Zero Option’ Could Add Up to Afghan Civil War ,
Pakistan February 25, 2014 .
<http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=22675378&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FBfYVf9QlqT>
[2] Rawlings,
Nate. “Why the U.S.
Needs to Keep Troops in Afghanistan .”
Time Magazine. February 26, 2014 .
<http://world.time.com/2014/02/26/why-the-u-s-needs-to-keep-troops-in-afghanistan/>
[3] Rawlings,
Nate. “Hamid Karzai and U.S.
at Odds Over Security Deal.” Time Magazine. November 26, 2013 . <http://world.time.com/2013/11/26/hamid-karzai-and-u-s-at-odds-over-security-deal/>
[4] Burns,
Robert. “Will the ‘zero option’ in Afghanistan
cause chaos and violence?” Fox News. February
28, 2014 . <http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/28/will-zero-option-in-afghanistan-cause-chaos-and-violence/>
U.S. Afghan Security Deal
![U.S. Afghan Security Deal]()
Reviewed by IJ Pack
on
6:54 PM
Rating:
No comments