You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
ObamaÂ’s Deal With Karzai Bans Raids On Al-Qaeda Bases In Pakistan
2012-05-04
President Barack Obama has promised not to attack Pakistan-based al-Qaida leaders or fighters from bases inside Afghanistan.

The surprising commitment effectively bars Obama and his successors from launching another nighttime helicopter raid like the one that that killed Osama bin Laden. That raid has proven to be ObamaÂ’s primary foreign-policy success because it killed bin Laden, scooped up much intelligence data and shocked Pakistan.

ObamaÂ’s commitment will also end the use of secretive drone-attacks from Afghanistan. Those attacks have killed hundreds of al-Qaida leaders since the mid-2000s. TheyÂ’ve also been very popular with U.S voters, and usually have had tacit Pakistan approval.

The unadvertised provision is buried in the deal that Afghan president Hamid Karzai and Obama signed with much campaign-style fanfare May 1 in Kabul. It could provide a legal shield for Pakistani-based al-QaidaÂ’s leaders, front-line fighters, terrorism-planners, allied terror-leaders, funders, terror bases and terror training-grounds.

“The United States further pledges not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks against other countries,” says the provision, found in paragraph 6b of the eight-page deal.

Even though Al-Qaida wants to overthrow the Afghan government, Karzai likely signed the safe harbor deal to minimize conflicts with neighboring Pakistan and Iran, said Elliot Cohen, a national-security professor at John Hopkins UniversityÂ’s D.C.-based school of advanced international studies.

“Karzai probably asked [for the clause], perhaps at the behest of Pakistan,” Cohen said. But its inclusion “is baffling,” he said.

PakistanÂ’s government vigorously objected to the May 2011 bin Laden raid.

The raid embarrassed its military and intelligence agencies, both of which claimed not to know that bin LadenÂ’s hideout was a short distance from their primary officer-training school.

If Obama pushed for the clause, Karzai likely would not have objected, Cohen said. “We’ve made it clear we’re headed for the exits, so why [upset the neighbors],” he said.

Media reports say that the U.S. agencies have also launched multiple secret short-range raids and strikes against terror bases on the Pakistani side of the Pakistan-Afghan border. ObamaÂ’s new deal would also presumably stop those short-range raids into Pakistan.

Once Obama leaves power, U.S. lawyers may try to argue their way past the section. For example, they might argue that attack on a jihadi base in Pakistan is not an attack on the country, but an attack on jihadis.

Also, the deal does not bar the United States from attacking jihadi targets in Pakistan with missiles launched from aircraft, ships or submarines in the Indian Ocean. However, those raids could be considered a more blatant violation of PakistanÂ’s sovereignty than secretive short-range raids launched from U.S. bases in the Afghan mountains.

The May 1 deal is titled “Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement Between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.” Its main provision says U.S combat forces will leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

However, the “enduring” part of the agreement is vague. It consists of a section that says the White House will ask Congress to send some aid to Afghanistan each year.

The deal does allow a small force of U.S. commandos to stay in Afghanistan, at the approval of future Afghan governments. Karzai is slated to retire in 2014.

Those remaining commando forces would be tasked to attacking al-Qaida groups inside Afghanistan.

However, Obama and his deputies have indicated they would not necessarily oppose a role for al-QaidaÂ’s main ally, the Taliban, in the Afghan government. If the Taliban is part of the Afghan government, it likely would veto any U.S. raids on al-Qaida in Afghanistan or in Pakistan.
Posted by:Sherry

#5  Thus the democrats take one more step to make Afghanistan just like Vietnam.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2012-05-04 23:40  

#4  isn't this a replay of Viet Nam where we were not permitted to cross into Laos after the VC???

Seems Bammy has his own V.N. moment.
Posted by: USN,Ret   2012-05-04 20:46  

#3  As complemented by their reiteration that they Pakistan helped the US get Osama, IMO it looks like Pakistan = Islamabad wants to be wholly responsible for any Mil-led responses agz the Hard/Bad Boyz based in their own country - NO US-NATO ALLOWED, AGAIN???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2012-05-04 19:56  

#2  So the Taliban and al-Aqeada get a safe place to retreat to, re-arm, train and relax.
Wonderful.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2012-05-04 18:57  

#1  Whew! Now he can vote present on future related matters.
Posted by: gorb   2012-05-04 14:27  

00:00