U.S. may stay in Afghanistan 10 more years

President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul, Afghanistan, May 2, 2012

BEIRUT, Lebanon – The United States could be in Afghanistan many years longer than the projected 2016 troop withdrawal that President Obama announced in his commencement speech at West Point, according to a informed source cited in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

While some 9,800 troops are slated to stay until then, plans are being formulated to continue a U.S. presence through diplomatic and intelligence assets, as well as the hiring of private security contractors.

The contractors would undertake training and provide security in the more isolated areas of the country.

TRENDING: Margot Robbie breaks silence about possibility of 'Barbie 2'

As was done in Iraq, private military contractors, or PMC’s, would help insure security in the more remote areas, but they would need to come equipped with their own means of transportation, including ground vehicles, helicopters and medevac capabilities in case of injuries.

Aiding in the prospect is the promise from Afghanistan’s two leading presidential candidates succeeding outgoing Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai to agree to a security pact with the U.S.

The candidates, Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, have agreed to sign it. Currently, Abdullah has the lead over Ghani for a scheduled run-off later this year.

Formally referred to as the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement Between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America, the pact would provide a long-term framework on the two countries’ relationship following the drawdown of U.S. forces.

Such an agreement similarly was sought by the U.S. once troops were withdrawn from Iraq in 2010, but the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could not get an agreement within his own government.

He also came under heavy pressure from neighboring Iran not to sign it. Like Iranian leaders, al-Maliki is Shiite and generally follows Iran’s advice.

Similarly, Iran also has objected to the proposed security arrangement with Afghanistan.

To date, Karzai has refused to sign the 10-year agreement which, among other things, would grant immunity to prosecution of U.S. personnel, a major sticking point in previous discussions, even though Karzai had been advised by the Afghan parliament to sign it.

With the U.S. having failed to reach agreement with Iraq after building the most expensive embassy complex in U.S. history, intended to facilitate overall U.S. influence throughout the region, it now is looking to undertake a similar effort in Afghanistan.

According to informed sources, the number of American diplomats, intelligence personnel, civilian government officials and contractors could well exceed the 9,800 troops Obama said would remain until the end of 2016.

The number of U.S. diplomats alone could increase to more than 300 Foreign Service officers as well as civilian government workers from various U.S. agencies, including USAID, intelligence and such departments as Defense, Justice and Agriculture.

Government workers also would be picked to work with various Afghan development programs in the countryside that could amount to tens of billions of dollars in U.S. funding.

Among other things, sources say, U.S. government workers overseeing these projects are to help insure that money isn’t siphoned off, as has previously occurred, amounting to billions of dollars which have gone missing.

Since such work would be done in remote areas, security would be an issue. The U.S. would not have the troops at forward bases as before to provide security.

Instead, the U.S. is looking at various options, including the hiring of large numbers of security contractors with support networks to insure their safety and move U.S. workers from place to place.

Under Karzai, the Afghan government has been increasingly strict on PMC’s, demanding that they operate within the confines of Afghan law and under the authority of the Afghan Public Protection Force.

Under a new Afghan president eager to implement the security agreement, however, such restrictions could go by the wayside.

Because the mission in Afghanistan was led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, there is some question as to whether allies would be willing to further invest tens of billions of dollars to assist in security and be involved in ongoing and future projects.

With the continued serious economic problems in Europe, the growing urgency of increased defense to meet new Russian assertiveness in the region and the fact that NATO allies couldn’t wait to leave Afghanistan, the U.S. ultimately may be left bearing much of the cost and commitment.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

For the complete report and full immediate access to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, subscribe now.