nb_cid nb_clickOther -tt-nb this.style.behavior='url(#default#homepage)';this.setHomePage('http://www.aol.com/?mtmhp=acm50ieupgradebanner_112313 network-banner-empty upgradeBanner
14
Search AOL Mail
AOL Mail
Video
Video
AOL Favorites
Favorites
Menu

Will Afghanistan security take backseat to Europe?

Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (AP) - With Russia pushing new hostilities to Europe's doorstep, U.S. and NATO officials are trying to gauge whether already dwindling resources and attention will be diverted from what, until now, has been a top security priority: Afghanistan.

NATO, the international military alliance, is intent on continuing its 12-year mission in Afghanistan and has urged the government in Kabul to sign a security agreement allowing foreign troops to stay and train local forces beyond a Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline.

But with NATO states in Eastern Europe openly worried over Russian aggression, especially after Moscow this week annexed the strategic Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine, the alliance may have little choice but to bolster its own borders at some cost of keeping a robust and diverse military presence a continent away.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen insisted Wednesday that Russia's aggressions would not distract the military alliance from Afghanistan.

"We have the capacity to deal with several missions and operations at one and the same time," Rasmussen said under questioning at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington. "And ongoing events will not have any impact on our engagement in Afghanistan."

Other experts said it is inevitable that some European nations - particularly those within Russia's reach - refocus on securing their home fronts.

"Because the Europeans are more concerned about Russia as a threat, they will be less inclined to divert very precious resources to overseas-type missions, of which Afghanistan is clearly one," retired Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis, the former NATO supreme allied commander and top U.S. commander in Europe, said in an interview this week.

"In resources for these smaller nations, they'll want to put more attention and more focus on the very defensive level of effort," said Stavridis, now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Medford, Mass.

The war in Afghanistan has been winding down over the past year, and the vast majority of the 52,000 troops from 49 nations who are there currently already are planning to head home.

It hasn't been decided how many may stay, in large part because Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign a security agreement with the U.S. and NATO that would allow foreign forces to remain beyond December, when a United Nations mandate that authorizes their mission expires. Officials assume, and hope, that Afghan elections next month will yield a new leader who will agree to the continued military aid.

If permitted, it's believed that as many as 10,000 U.S. troops and an additional 5,000 NATO forces will make up the foreign training mission in Afghanistan after 2014. Generally, NATO officials want to deploy forces from as many member nations as possible to demonstrate widespread support for the effort.

Excluding U.S. forces, NATO nations currently provide about 15,800 troops in Afghanistan, according to a Feb. 20 tally on its website. Of those, nearly 20 percent come from eight states that for years were under Moscow's influence: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

Worried over Russian's new advances, Poland and Latvia agreed recently to begin coordinating security activities more closely. And on Tuesday, Estonian President Toomas Ilves spoke of the end of what he described as a 20-year NATO philosophy of "out of the area or out of business" that assumed Europe no longer faced external threats.

"That unfortunately has turned out, with the actions we've seen against Ukraine, no longer to apply," Ilves said after a meeting in Warsaw with Vice President Joe Biden.

Ukraine, which is not a NATO member, only had a few dozen troops still in Afghanistan as of Feb. 20, when unrest in its capital Kiev peaked, resulting in the ouster of its pro-Russian president. Leaders in Ukraine's new government have sought inclusion in the European Union to ease domestic economic woes, but Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said this week that Kiev has shelved its aspirations to join NATO to appease its pro-Russian citizens who oppose it.

The former Soviet state of Georgia also has been seeking NATO membership for years, and has more than 800 troops in Afghanistan. Stavridis predicted that Georgia will not step back from Afghanistan as it strives to show NATO and the U.S. it would be a reliable partner.

In turn, Washington is trying to reassure NATO allies that the U.S. will help defend them if necessary. So far, the U.S. has sent about 300 air troops and a dozen F-16 fighters to Poland for joint training and is considering rotating American forces to the Baltic region as a step toward shoring up NATO defenses.

But the U.S. is facing a military resources crunch of its own. Although the Pentagon has budgeted a $79 billion "placeholder" sum for 2015 operations in Afghanistan, it also is preparing to shrink its armed forces and is considering cuts to the two remaining Army brigades stationed in Germany.

Stephen Biddle, a security and defense expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, said it's generally more expensive to keep troops in Afghanistan than it is in the U.S. or even Europe. He said a combination of budget pressures and nervousness over Russia could lead to further U.S. troop reductions in Afghanistan.

In the long term, the crisis could result in U.S. troops and military assets from around the world, including Afghanistan, being moved to Europe, said Christopher S. Chivvis, a European security and NATO expert with the RAND Corp. think tank.

"If you look further down the road, the big question is, What is the impact of this crisis going to be on the trajectory of the U.S. defense posture in Europe, which has been downward over the course of the last 20 years?" Chivvis said. "Before this, it was likely to continue on a downward path. So the question is now whether or not this crisis will stop that decline, or even potentially reverse it."

Rasmussen, while maintaining a future military commitment in Afghanistan, nonetheless predicted the West will "need to take tough decisions" to preserve European security in light of Russia's advances. He called the crisis in Crimea "the gravest threat to European security and stability since the end of the Cold War," and cited fears that Russian President Vladimir Putin will push farther West to sow instability and prevent other former communist states from joining European alliances.

"My major concern is that this won't stop," Rasmussen told a crowded audience at Brookings.

___

Follow Lara Jakes on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/larajakesAP

Join the discussion

1000|Characters 1000  Characters
Luv1nl1fe March 21 2014 at 12:35 AM

I wonder how secure our northwestern border is being watched. Through the Bering Straits, Russia is is very, very close to the US. If China and Russia are allies, this could be an enterance route for China and Russia. Canada and the U.S. could be at risk. As far as NATO goes, the U.S. should not commit any more troops than other countries. With our current economical situation, war or another police action, is not the answer for repairing our country. Our presence in the Middle East is not needed nor wanted. Look how many troops are deployed over there now. What percentage of these troops are American? If one more cent is sent over to the Middle East to rebuild their mosques (sp), schools or even an outhouse, there needs to be consequences for their action(s) of spending taxpayers dollars for such things! Not one red cent came to America to rebuild after 911 but we still give them money? BS!!

Flag Reply +1 rate up
ltpar March 21 2014 at 12:59 AM

Why should American taxpayers pay one dime for defending this piss ant country where most people want to be aligned with Russia anyway? We need to stop Nation Building and get out of Afghanistan, NATO and other such places and let them pay for their own security. How about we solve American problems first before worrying about the rest of the world?

Flag Reply +1 rate up
mamoseley3 March 20 2014 at 8:32 AM

"Dwindling resources"? How about "almost non-existent resources"? If our illustrious Pres doesn't STOP cutting our military numbers and support, we aren't even going to have a mllitary. He's deliberately doing away with our military, folks, and you can bet on it. This country has just about had enough of his lying and taking away our justce system. Americans are his pawns and he is using his "Presidential privilege" to tear down everything this country stands for. Civil unrest is bound to rear its ugly head in the not-too-distant future if something isn't done about his "I can do anything I want to do because I'm the President/God" image. America had better wake up and smell the coffee because he is selling us out to the rest of the world.

Flag Reply +10 rate up
Dave March 20 2014 at 11:56 AM

The Russians have three more years to do their thing. It is then the US will get a President who might know what the hell he/she is doing.

Flag Reply +5 rate up
2 replies
borisirlinsky Dave March 20 2014 at 12:11 PM

how are you so sure that your new presidente will not be even worse then current one ?

Flag Reply +2 rate up
1 reply
buddy7768 borisirlinsky March 20 2014 at 3:59 PM

that would be hard to imagine

Flag +5 rate up
Liza Dave March 20 2014 at 12:33 PM

He knows what the hell he is doing. You don't know what the hell you're talking about though.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
3 replies
artbenny March 20 2014 at 1:17 PM

Russia should go ahead and take over all of Ukraine now because NATO is not prepared to stop Russia. Once Ukraine is taken over, NATO will not be able to push the Russians out without a full scale war. And no one wants a full scale war.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
ramonbatt March 20 2014 at 11:43 PM

Estonia president sounds like he welcomes Putin in to make Estonia part of Russia? More power to him.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
Lennie and Mark March 20 2014 at 11:30 PM

Obama should not be cutting our military forces down. What is he thinking ? All this just so he can gave out more food stamps and freebees to the ones that shouldn't be getting anything. Wait till another country controls us and see how much help people get then. Obama do you want to save or destroy our country?

Flag Reply 0 rate up
ergt86 March 20 2014 at 11:37 PM

The ball is starting to roll towards war as it did before WW I. The US military is very under strength as it was prior to WW II. Because of that our potential enemies become embolden and think we are powerless. We may be rolling into WW III. That would be a World wide disaster.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
1 reply
ramonbatt ergt86 March 20 2014 at 11:49 PM

Huge difference. World War II United States didn't do anything until it was to late for many. Remember America was just recovering from the Great Depression. American citizens were saying it is not our war or problem. We need to take care of us first. Just like to day. 90% plus Americans feel it is none of our business or concern. Well? Ukraine it is our business and concern!

Flag Reply 0 rate up
aol~~ 1209600

Voting...

1414045371826

World Series

More From Our Partners