By Missy Ryan and Arshad MohammedWASHINGTON, April-21(Reuters) - the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan may fall well below 10,000 - the minimum by the U.S. military, Afghan forces - train asked how the longest war in American history winds, say the officials informed the Government of Obama on the issue.
Since Afghanistan's parliamentary election on June 5 the White House, State Department and Pentagon officials have to persist again recorded discussions about how many American troops after the current US led coalition, their mission ends this year.
The decision to consider a small force, possibly less than 5,000 U.S. troops, reflects a belief among White House officials that Afghan security forces in a sturdy included have developed-led uprising enough force to a more potent Taliban. The small U.S. force that would remain could concentrate on fighting terrorism or training operations.
The belief, which officials say partially Afghanistan surprisingly smooth election, based on the international praise for its high turnout has won, an estimated 60 percent of the 12 million eligible votes and the failure of Taliban fighters to stage high-profile attacks that day.
The Obama administration has sought for months on options for a possible remaining U.S. force.
"The discussion is very much alive," said a US official not be identified. "they are looking for additional options under 10,000" troops.
Today, there are about 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, denying along by 100,000 in the year 2011, if a decade to a conflict originally reached intends to troop numbers, al-Qaida sanctuary in Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, attacks.
QUESTIONS ABOUT AFGHAN FORCES
With British and other foreign troops, expected to be in lockstep with U.S. soldiers to all remaining US forces could add fuel to a debate in Washington run over whether Taliban-led violence surrounded the by Western forces to intensify vacuum is, like some members of the U.S. military has.
Military leaders, including the American General Joe Dunford, heads, US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, has identified 10,000 soldiers, as a minimum, to train help and advise Afghan forces in the fight against the insurgents, argue that a smaller force would fight to protect themselves.
During a visit in March in Washington Dunford said legislators that without foreign would support soldiers, Afghan forces begin, "Fairly quickly" to worsen in the year 2015. Independently, yet need more help Afghan air force, still several years away, who, he said.
A smaller U.S. force could have other unintended consequences, perhaps scares already skeptical lawmakers fully finance United States promise to Afghan forces in the Fund help.
At its current size at least $5 billion in 2015 will cost Afghan forces a sum far beyond the reach of the Afghan Government. The United States has generally been expected was the largest outside donor to those forces.
The Taliban and other fighters from more than 12 years Afghan and NATO attacks have been weakened, but they can to plan supply and attacks from remote mountain regions and tribal areas of neighboring Pakistan, Afghanistan.
Some analysts are less than 10,000 soldiers to reduce the U.S. presence.
"The White House decides to keep a smaller number of troops, there will be more pressure on Afghan forces and run the risk of wasting their recent advances against the Taliban", said Lisa Curtis, a former CIA analyst and State Department now with the conservative Heritage Foundation, a think tank in Washington.
An American Association below 10,000 could focus almost exclusively on anti-terrorism, tracking combined with a much-weakened but resilient al fighter Qaeda insurgency on the basis of the Afghan Pakistan border, officials said.
Debate over the size of the remaining U.S. force follows the failure of the United States and Afghan Governments, a bilateral security agreement (BSA) to one to authorize to finalize troop presence in Afghanistan through 2014, that finally forces the deadline for the United States and NATO in the United States their fight against the Taliban.
"The longer, the more difficult it will be to plan and run a US mission, we go without a BSA," said Laura Lucas Magnuson, a spokeswoman for the White House. "The longer without a BSA, it becomes the more likely we go beyond, that will be less any post-2014 U.S. Mission in scope and ambition."
Results of the recent presidential election may not be known, for weeks or months, flows take place. But leading candidates have said that they will sign the agreement which was held due to reservations by current Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
End of February Obama announced that the United States will possibly try to sign the deal with Karzai's successor and possibly to train troops after 2014 and advised to pursue Afghan forces and al-Qaeda fighters hold.
Some US officials believe that Afghan forces will require significant, in addition to hands-on support from foreign troops, help from the United States. (Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle; (Editing by Jason Szep and David Lindsey)
EmoticonEmoticon